Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

V.E. DAY: MESSAGE FROM DANISH PARLIAMENT

Mr. Speaker: I should like to inform the House that I have received a cablegram from the President of the Danish Parliament, which I propose to read:

"His Excellency, The SPEAKER of the House of Commons, London, S.W.1.

Eight years ago those words were uttered in the British Parliament which gave promise of the restoration to Denmark of Liberty and Independence. The Danish Parliament request Your Excellency to accept its heartfelt thanks for the unforgettable contribution of Britain and the British Parliament towards the liberation of Denmark and today, on V.E. Day, it tenders its most cordial wishes for the future of the United Kingdom.

(Signed) JUL BOMHOLT,

President of the Folketing."

I have sent a suitable reply.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRADFORD) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the City of Bradford," presented by Mr. Bevan; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRISTOL) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the City of Bristol," presented by Mr. Bevan; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HUDDERSFIELD) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the County Borough of Huddersfield," presented by Mr. Bevan; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Building Repairs (Value Limit)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Works if he will allow owners or occupiers to do work to the value of £10, excluding the value of their own labour.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): In the period of six months ending 31st July next, an owner or occupier can put in hand work up to the value of £10, with the addition of £2 in each month, without having to apply for a licence. This excludes the value of his own labour.

Vandalism, London Parks

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Works if he will make a statement on the increase in vandalism in London parks after dark; and the steps being taken to prevent it.

Mr. Key: Vandalism in the Royal Parks in London after dark has greatly increased since the removal of the railings. Buildings are repeatedly broken into, chairs and other equipment damaged, and plants stolen. The shortage of park keepers and police makes prevention difficult, but I am endeavouring to recruit more park keepers and watchmen, and I am also providing fences and hedges wherever possible.

Mr. Gammans: To what does the right hon. Gentleman attribute this deplorable state of affairs? Does he think it is due to shortage of police or to a general breakdown in the sense of public responsibility?

Mr. Key: I would say—and this is my personal opinion—that just as after the first world war so after this war there has been a breakdown in the discipline of the young people of this country which will take some time to overcome.

Mr. Tolley: Has my right hon. Friend considered making it clear to the general public that they should take care of these parks which after all, are their own property?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend consider erecting notices appealing for better behaviour on the part of the users of these parks? That might have a better effect.

Mobile Labour Force

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Works what is the average cost of permanent houses built by his department's labour squad in respect of houses erected during the six months ended 30th September, 1947, and for the six months ended 31st March, 1948.

Mr. Key: The average cost of the new permanent houses completed by the mobile labour force during the periods referred to was £1,668 and £1,777, respectively. The figures exclude the cost of roads, sewers and other external services. These houses were built to meet the requirements of other Departments, mainly in isolated areas where local labour was inadequate.

Mr. Marples: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that all the houses were built in isolated areas? In view of the fact that a private builder is allowed only £1,300 to build a house, how can he justify his Department spending so much in building?

Mr. Key: I want to make it clear that the mobile labour force is used in isolated areas where we find it difficult or impossible to get private industry to take on the job. This involves a good deal of transport, special terms so far as the guaranteeed week is concerned, London rates wherever the job may be, and favourable annual and public-holiday arrangements. In the first period referred to, these items involved £324 per house, and in the second period £375 per house. It will be apparent, therefore, that there is very little difference between the price to which the hon Member has referred to regard to construction by private industry.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in every case before the job was given to the mobile squad private enterprise builders were invited to tender and refused to do so?

Mr. Key: No, Sir, not in every case.

Mr. Marples: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with the one he

gave on 26th April, which showed that the average price of building houses by the squad was estimated at £2,500?

Mr. Key: That was a specific case of a particular type of house.

Mr. Marples: asked the Minister of Works the average cost of erection only of temporary prefabricated houses when erected by the mobile labour squad under the supervision of his Department and when erected by private contractors, respectively.

Mr. Key: There is only one case where the mobile labour force has been employed on erection only and it is, therefore, not possible to make a fair comparison with the average cost of erection by private contractors.

Mr. Marples: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with the one he gave on 26th April when he stated that the price of 343 prefabricated houses, built by his squad at a cost of £397,070, did not include the cost of prefabricated components?

Mr. Key: I am asked in this case to deal with the subject of erection only. In the other cases there was a good deal of site and slab preparation, and so on.

Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House comparative figures to show what his Department are spending and what private enterprise are charging?

Mr. Key: As I have said, I have only one case where erection only has been done by the mobile labour force. While in that case it was done at a figure which was less than the cost in a considerable number of other cases of erection only by private enterprise, yet I do not think it would be fair to put that one instance in comparison with the general situation.

Building Licence, Old Trafford

Squadron-Leader Fleming: asked the Minister of Works whether he has considered the application of the Lancashire County Cricket Club to erect a temporary dining room at Old Trafford ground; and if he has given permission for this work to be done.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir, I have given instructions for the necessary building licence to be issued.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer tempts me to ask him whether the permit will be granted immediately, so that we can get on with the job before the Australians play Lancashire?

Mr. Key: I understand that the secondhand steel necessary is available and that no timber or other controlled materials are required.

Refreshments, Regent's Park Theatre

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Works what arrangements are contemplated or have been made for the provision in Regent's Park of canteen or restaurant facilities near the open-air theatre.

Mr. Key: I hope, as soon as conditions permit, to provide a restaurant for visitors to the open air theatre.

Horticultural Boilers

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the difficulty in obtaining delivery of horticultural boilers; and what steps he is taking to remedy the position.

Mr. Key: There is a shortage of the larger size boilers, which are also used for industrial and other purposes. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of any particularly urgent demand, I will see whether it can be met without detriment to equally important orders.

Statues

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Minister of Works whether he will appoint a small committee to consider the statues for which his Department is responsible and make proposals for the re-siting of some statues and the possible removal of others, with a view to giving a better display to those statues which most merit it by reason either of the subject or the treatment.

Mr. Key: No, Sir, I do not think that the expenditure of time and money upon such an inquiry at the present time would be justified.

Mr. Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although his answer causes me deep disappointment, it will not affect our personal relationships?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he

has not forgotten the question of King George IV's spurs in Trafalgar Square?

Brick Prices

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Works whether he will make a statement about brick prices.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. As the House will be aware, the price of common bricks throughout the country has hitherto been controlled by statutory order. I have considered whether in present conditions this control can be removed. Maximum prices were originally imposed because of a serious scarcity of bricks. There is now an ample supply of bricks to meet the present demand, and even to meet a substantial increase in that demand. In these circumstances I have decided to revoke the Brick Prices Orders with effect from 17th May, 1948.

Mr. Marples: Did not the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge in writing to increase the maximum price of bricks and did he not fail to carry out that pledge?

Mr. Key: No, Sir, individually, I never gave such a pledge.

Sir Waldron Smithers: In view of the fact that hundreds of small brick manufacturers are holding large stocks for which the maximum price has been removed, what undertaking will the Minister give that they will be saved from financial loss owing to the folly of this Government?

Mr. Key: I do not see that the folly of this Government is evidenced by the supply of bricks available at the present time.

Sir W. Smithers: Will he not give some undertaking that those brickmakers will be protected from actual loss?

Building Operations

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the inquiries already made into the production of certain building materials and into the distribution of building materials and components, he will consider the advisability of extending his inquiries to include the activities of the building industry.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. I have decided to appoint a working party to inquire into the organisation and efficiency of building operations in this country. I am consider-


ing the constitution and terms of reference of the working party and I will make a further announcement after the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Marples: Will the Minister consider the desirability of including his own rather inefficient mobile labour force?

Mr. Key: I am making constant inquiries into the operations of my mobile labour force. I consider that it is a most essential service at the present time.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Minister give an assurance that the terms of reference of the working party will enable them to take account of the difficulties of the building industry and, of its sense of frustration at having to obtain permits and other documents from the regional authorities?

Mr. Key: I will see that the terms of reference of the working party are free and open, but I do not accept the innuendo of frustration.

Requisitioned Premises, Chippenham

Mr. Frank Byers: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that the headquarters of the Conservative Party and the headquarters of the Labour Party in the Chippenham Division have both been released from requisitioning for several years; and if he will now release the Liberal headquarters, in Chippenham, in order to avoid further penalisation of one political party.

Mr. Key: Other accommodation for the Chippenham food office has now been found. It will take some months to prepare the premises for occupation, but as soon as they are ready the Liberal hall will be given up.

Mr. Byers: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to be very happy about that reply. Is he aware that this delay has been going on for more than two and a half years? Will he not consider doing something to free this hall so that the Liberals can go forward with their activities during this Summer?

Mr. Key: I will do all I can to ensure that the hall is liberated as soon as possible. I quite understand the immense national importance of the activities there carried on.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the hall be large enough to hold the two Members of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Byers: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his sarcastic answer will show that the Labour Party are prepared to penalise one political party at the expense of others.

Mr. Key: The Minister's sarcastic answer does not deserve the same kind of reproof as do the terms of the Question, which was put to him:
in order to avoid further penalisation of one political party.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In order that the House may follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, can he say to what purpose it is proposed to put these premises when they are freed?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Information Services

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what increase in establishment or upgrading of status of officers is contemplated for the Information Services in the North Rhine-Westphalia region;
(2) what new officers have been or are to be appointed to the Information Services in the North Rhine-Westphalia region; what are their qualifications; and whether any junior officers in the same service in the same region are being up-graded.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): No increase in the number of information officers in the North Rhine-Westphalia region is contemplated. On the contrary, it is proposed to reduce their total number by two. There will be some upgrading of status in the remaining posts so that information officers of a sufficiently high standard may be retained in the service or recruited to it. In the course of this re-arrangement one new officer has been appointed and three others recommended for appointment to information services in the North Rhine-Westphalia region. They have either journalistic qualifications or a specialised knowledge of foreign affairs. A Civil Service selection board in London was satisfied as to their suitability. Three officers who were in posts before the new appointment will be recommended for promotion when a new establishment is approved.

Mr. Beswick: Am I to understand that although the total is being reduced, yet four new officers are being brought in from outside? Why could not suitable applicants have been found among people already employed?

Mr. McNeil: I am assured that the most rigorous scrutiny was made of the people in the service. These new appointments demand specialised qualifications, and we have to look outside the service at least for some of them.

Mr. Beswick: Am I to understand that the Minister is dissatisfied with the way in which these services have been carried on?

Mr. McNeil: No, but I never have been satisfied. That is why we have had to look for people with specialist qualifications.

Suspected Persons (Interrogation)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent Polish troops are used in Germany for duties relating to interrogation and detention of suspected persons.

Mr. McNeil: There are now no Polish troops in the British zone of Germany.

Death Penalty

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the position of those convicted of murder in the British zone of Germany.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government have reviewed the position in regard to the imposition of the death penalty in the British zones of Germany and Austria. In Germany, British subjects will, if charged with murder, normally be tried under English law, and will be subject to such penalty as is in force in England at the time. In view of the prospect of the law being amended during the current Session of Parliament, any death sentences on British subjects convicted of murder would, following the procedure in the United Kingdom, he commuted. In all the other cases where the death penalty can at present be imposed it has been decided to make

no change. These cases are: War crimes and crimes against humanity; convictions for murder according to the German penal code, and convictions for serious offences against the security of the occupying forces under Military Government legislation.

Meat Ration

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present meat ration in the British and U.S. bizone of Germany.

Mr. McNeil: The present meat ration is 100 grammes per month for all consumer categories in the combined zones except for light and heavy coal miners, who obtain 3,210 and 4,400 grammes per month respectively. In Berlin the basic meat ration has been maintained at about 1,200 grammes per month.

Mr. Marshall: Has that meat ration been met?

Mr. McNeil: I am speaking about the ration which has been met

Mr. Lipson: For the enlightenment of hon. Members, could the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the British meat ration this figure represents? Could he relate it to the British meat ration?

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry. I am usually rather vain about my ability to do mental arithmetic, but that is beyond me.

Parcel Post Regulations

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions are in force in Berlin with regard to parcel post.

Mr. McNeil: Quadripartite regulations governing the parcel post between Berlin and the four zones of occupation were agreed on 29th April, 1947, and the service began on 15th May, 1947. On 1st April, 1948, all parcels between Berlin and the four zones were held up on orders issued unilaterally by the Russians. Their object was to obtain substantial amendments to the regulations. These amendments were not acceptable to the other three occupying Powers. The matter is still under discussion in the Four Power Kommandatura.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (FRONTIER INCIDENT)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action has been taken over the killing of Lieut. J. E. Burke and the detention of Mrs. Burke and Mr. Marler; and what the result of such action has been.

Mr. McNeil: This incident took place on Yugoslav territory. The frontier-line at the Loibl Pass is clearly marked, but on seeing that no Yugoslav sentries were at the barrier the British party elected to pass the frontier in order to get a better view of the scenery. Yugoslav sentries later appeared, arrested the party and took them to headquarters.
On the way a struggle took place in which Lieutenant Burke was killed. The Yugoslav sentries, though they were not present at the subsequent court of inquiry, are said to have deposed that Lieutenant Burke, who, like his companions, was unarmed, assaulted one of them and that another sentry opened fire and killed Lieutenant Burke. Second-Lieutenant Marler and Mrs. Burke, whilst in Yugoslav hands, signed a statement to the effect that Lieutenant Burke's death was due to his own fault. Since his release Second-Lieutenant Marler has admitted that he was in front of Lieutenant Burke when the struggle started and was unable to see exactly how it began, but he adheres to his view that Lieutenant Burke initiated the struggle in order to escape, and that he was, therefore, responsible for his own death. The Yugoslav Government at once expressed to His Majesty's Ambassador in Belgrade their regret at the incident and proposed the holding of a joint inquiry. His Majesty's Ambassador at Belgrade accepted this offer, but took grave exception to the fact that the Yugoslav sentry had used his firearm against an unarmed man. The holding of the joint inquiry was, in fact, delayed, apparently through difficulties of communication between Belgrade and the frontier, and also through the refusal of the Yugoslav authorities to release the survivors. His Majesty's Ambassador in Belgrade, however, continued to press for and finally secured the release of the survivors, and the return of Lieutenant Burke's body.
I may add that the survivors were not subjected to any ill-treatment during the

period of their detention, and that Lieutenant Burke's body was returned by the Yugoslav authorities with every mark of respect. The joint inquiry was held on 2nd May and its findings were published on the same day.

Mr. Blackburn: While thanking the Minister for his statement, may I ask him whether he is aware that it differs considerably from the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the last occasion? Secondly, may I ask him whether Mrs. Burke has expressed any opinion as to the circumstances in which her husband was killed? Thirdly, may I ask him whether he will repeat, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the view that it is quite unjustifiable to shoot an unarmed man?

Mr. McNeil: As to the first point, I cannot agree that it differs substantially from the statement which was made by my hon. Friend, who made it plain that he had not completed his investigations at that time. Secondly, if there is an appropriate opportunity we will repeat our distress that this action was taken against an unarmed man. Thirdly, as to Mrs. Burke's evidence, it is, of course, proposed to hold a British court of inquiry as soon as the two witnesses have sufficiently recovered as to be able to give evidence.

Mr. Blackburn: May I, with respect, put it to the Minister that if he looks at the statement made by the Under-Secretary he will find that the Yugoslav Government were completely exonerated by the Under-Secretary?

Mr. McNeil: It would be an obvious impertinence for me to have come here to attempt to reply to this Question without having read the carefully prepared and carefully made statement of my hon. Friend.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the findings of the joint inquiry held on 2nd May actually blamed or exonerated Lieutenant Burke?

Mr. McNeil: The findings of the joint inquiry did make the point that Lieutenant Burke had struggled.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Has any arrangement been made for compensation to the widow, and if so who will bear the cost?

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to give me notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH OFFICER, BURMA (COMPENSATION)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has studied the details which have been sent him about a British officer in Burma who has suffered heavy loss during the war; and what steps he will take to get this officer compensation.

Mr. McNeil: I have studied the case from the particulars provided and hope shortly to be able to communicate with the hon. Member.

Sir W. Smithers: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, might I ask him whether, in view of the fact that this officer and many other British officers suffered heavy loss through no fault of their own, because of the Government's policy of the disintegration of the Empire, he will do all in his power to give this officer and many others justice and compensation?

Mr. McNeil: This officer, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has been in touch with our Ambassador in Rangoon, and I should prefer to have a report from His Majesty's Ambassador before I attempt to make a further reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — FALKLAND ISLANDS DEPENDENCIES

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to state with which countries a conference has taken place, or is taking place, on the Falkland Islands Dependencies disputes.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the statement made in the House on 15th March to the effect that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to refer the question of disputed sovereignty in the Falkland Islands Dependencies to the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Commander Noble: Would the Minister give an assurance that we shall not be presented with a fait accompli which is perhaps rather based on the temporary background of meat rather than the permanent legal position?

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government have made it plain in the House and in their replies to the two Governments concerned that we are quite sure of our legal title but that we are prepared to submit it to the appropriate organ if anyone else doubts its validity.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (EXECUTIONS)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Greece about the recent executions; and whether any reply has been made to his representations to the Greek Government.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had a report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Greece on the mass executions being carried out by the Greek Government; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Bing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a reply has yet been received to the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Athens to the Greek Government in regard to the numerous executions now taking place in Greece; and what further action His Majesty's Government propose to take in this matter.

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has a statement to make on the subject of the recent communication by His Majesty's Ambassador to the Greek Government in connection with the Greek executions; and what has been the result of this communication.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Ambassador in Athens, of course, has no status to interfere in Greek judicial procedure; however, in view of the Press reports and the answers in the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend instructed him to represent, in the plainest language, to the Greek Prime Minister and Foreign Minister that any executions in Greece in the nature of reprisals or of mass executions would create an immediate and deplorable reaction not only in this country but on all civilised opinion. Since the statement in the House on 5th May, telegrams from His Majesty's Ambassador show that the first public reports about the intentions of the Greek authorities were misleading.
The apprehension and trial of individuals charged with capital offences, many of them committed in the most brutal manner during the civil strife of 1944, has been a slow process continuing from July, 1945, to December, 1947. Then, after the conclusion of these trials, there have been the further procedures of appeal to the Supreme Court and to the Council of Pardons; and the House will appreciate that, repugnant as it is to our ideas that there should be so long a delay before condemned criminals are executed, these delays have been in great part due to the congestion in the Greek judicial machine, which has been worsened by the fact that Greece has been, throughout these years, in the throes of an armed uprising, receiving outside support. I should add that the decision of the Greek Government to allow these sentences to be carried out in the worst cases was taken many months ago, after the failure of conciliatory methods and the offer of amnesty.
The execution of those whose appeals were rejected began towards the end of 1947, and my information is that, up to 1st May, 157 of these convicted murderers had been executed. On that day Ladas, the Liberal Minister of Justice, was assassinated; and on 4th, 5th and 6th May a further 43, and on 7th May a further 17, persons convicted of murder during the 1944 rebellion were executed. My information is that these executions, like those previous to 1st May, were carried out after the full process of law.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the very great shock to public opinion in this country, because of these judicial murders—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to use his very great influence in Greece to put an end to further executions, and to do his utmost to bring about a truce between the contending parties, so that normal peaceful pursuits can be followed there?

Mr. McNeil: I hope I have already made plain our distress and anxiety about these reports, which are not completely borne out by the facts, but to call them judicial murders is quite unjustified. The Greek Ministry has assured us that there will be careful scrutiny, but we cannot ask that convicted murderers should just arbitrarily be freed from the appropriate

penalty. Moreover, while, like my hon. Friend, I am most anxious that strife should come to an end in Greece, it is—may I be pardoned for saying this?—rather easy for us coolly and appropriately to give advice to the Greek Government from here while they are threatened by an enemy, assisted from outside, and by a self-appointed leader of that enemy who urges that assassination should be used as a political method, and as a method of terrorisation. If our efforts can do anything to bring about a cooling in the temperature on both sides, that would be most desirable.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Whatever the explanations are, is the Minister aware that many people in this country do look on these mass executions as barbarous, and will the Government consider withdrawing all financial and military assistance from Greece if they are continued?

Mr. McNeil: I have made it plain that I do not wish to subtract from my anxiety and distress about these happenings, but it is unfair to call them mass executions. The figures and the procedure do not add up to that. There has been a detailed legal machinery followed which permitted an appeal, and, in some cases, a pardon.

Mr. Blackburn: May I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that every individual concerned has been convicted of murder, or of multiple murders, and whether the Government have stated, in reply to His Majesty's Government's communication that this is not a reprisal?

Mr. McNeil: Those facts are not only true, but the Greek Minister of Justice has publicly announced that each case will be scrutinised by him before execution is proceeded with.

Mr. Bing: In view of my right hon. Friend's reply that His Majesty's Government will investigate each one of these cases—[HON, MEMBERS: "No."]—would he not agree that these are all executions arising out of political crimes, and in view of the protest made against executions of this sort, will he not redouble his protests?

Mr. McNeil: I hope that I make the position plain. His Majesty's Government are neither conducting investigations nor have they any status on which so to proceed. Secondly, it is quite inaccurate to say that these sentences


arise in all cases from political crimes. Some of them were most barbarous, dreadful and multiple assassinations.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: On both sides.

Mr. McNeil: Of course, on both sides. But these prisoners are not, therefore, political prisoners.

Mr. Donner: Is it not a fact that foreign journalists have testified that these trials have been fair?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Proprietary Infant Foods

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Food whether in view of hardships caused to mothers in the lower income groups owing to the considerable variation in price, ranging from 2s. 6d. to 6s. a tin, of the brands of baby food now on the market, he will arrange for proportionately larger supplies of the lower priced foods to be available to chemists' shops in working-class areas.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): My Department does not control the distribution of proprietary infant milk foods, but the steps we have taken recently should ensure that reasonable supplies of the various brands are available in all districts. I shall be pleased to investigate any case of shortage of the cheaper brands in working-class areas if my hon. Friend will provide me with details.

Mr. Skinnard: Is it not a fact that the various types of baby foods to which I have referred in the Question are short because these quotas were rigidly adhered to, but that there are mounting stocks of unsaleable baby foods in chemist shops, while working class mothers are doing treks to try to get cheaper brands?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. There is no allocation system, so far as the Ministry are concerned, for these brands. They are entirely in private hands. I would point out, of course, that National Dried Milk, at 10½. a packet, is readily available in all these areas.

Canal Boatmen (Rations)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the difficulties of families of canal boatmen who live upon their boats in obtaining regular supplies of rationed foods; and if he will grant such

boatmen the extra cheese ration, or seamen's rations, where they are not permanently resident ashore.

Mr. Strachey: I am confident that canal boatmen and their families get all their rations although they may not be able to draw them regularly; I am afraid I cannot allow them more because of their shopping difficulties.

Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that they are unable to get all their rations because these families are constantly on the move? Milk is one important item which they are not able to get regularly, on account of the fact that they are constantly on the move. Is it not a fact that the children have to suffer from the lack of at least this one commodity, and will my right hon. Friend look into this matter again and endeavour to help these families?

Mr. Strachey: If my hon. Friend can give some details, we shall be interested to go into them; but these people do move along recognised routes, and my information is that they get their rations.

Jam Making

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make it possible for the housewife to make more of her own jam this Summer by making available to the domestic consumer a larger allocation of soft fruit and of extra sugar for jam making.

Mr. Strachey: I hope to be able to provide extra sugar for home made jam on last year's scale. We do not control the distribution of soft fruit; the quantity on sale will depend on the crop.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason he has so much manufactured jam on his hands at the moment is that housewives do not like it, will not buy it and would prefer to make their own, and will he not give them an extra allocation of sugar this year in order to defend the domestic arts against the encroachment of mass production?

Mr. Strachey: That may be my hon. Friend's view on this, but we do give a considerable number of sugar bonuses for this purpose and we would like to increase them if supplies will permit.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Can the Minister say how much sugar allocated for jam is actually made into jam?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he really considers it is a fair allocation to give one lb. of sugar in lieu of a two-lb. pot of jam? One cannot make two lb. of jam with one lb. of sugar?

Mr. Strachey: I can only say to the hon. and gallant Member that if he cannot perform this feat, almost everybody else can.

Tomatoes (Price Control)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that the Tomato Price Control Order was imposed at only three days' notice, causing great inconvenience and hardship to many growers, he will endeavour to give longer notice in future; if, as it was announced on 22nd March, 1948, that price control would only last six weeks, he will amend the present price control regulation from four months to two months; and will he state a definite date when price control will cease.

Mr. Strachey: Supplies of home grown tomatoes ready for market at this time of the year are almost negligible and the imposition of price control on 27th April cannot have caused hardship to home growers, particularly as the decision to reintroduce price control of tomatoes this year was announced first in January and repeated in March and April. It is our intention to free tomatoes from price control as soon as supplies are plentiful enough.

Mr. De la Bère.: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman own up? Is it not a fact that he has treated the home growers with lack of consideration? They do not know when this will end and they do not know why it has been prolonged longer than was promised originally. The right hon. Gentleman has not kept his promise.

Mr. Strachey: I agree with none of those suggestions.

Mr. De la Bère: I shall raise this matter again. The right hon. Gentleman should own up when he is wrong.

Special Cheese Ration (Building Workers)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Food why he has allowed Mr. Ronald Martin, a Kentish builder transferred to work on one of the housing sites of the Ten-

terden Rural District Council, to have his extra cheese ration transferred with him while he denies this to the other builders working on the same site and if he will now contribute to rural harmony by ensuring that all these men should receive their extra cheese ration.

Mr. Strachey: Mr. Martin's case is being reviewed in view of the change in his employment. But I regret that I am unable to allow the special cheese ration for building wokers on housing sites for whom, as in this case, a packed meals service can he provided.

Mr. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he intends to take away Mr. Martin's special cheese ration, because if he does that, is he aware that there is no packed meals service, and no café or canteen available? If he does not do that, how does he reconcile the position of having about 12 of these men without a special cheese ration and one with a ration?

Mr. Strachey: I should have thought that the proper solution was to induce the Tenterden Rural District Council to provide a packed meals service. It is to that that we are addressing our attention.

Potato Stocks

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the removal of potato rationing, he will now state the present stocks of potatoes in the country; how many tons of potatoes are held by his Department; and what is the cost to the taxpayer of the policy of rationing of the 1947 crop.

Mr. Strachey: Stocks of potatoes, including those held by the trade, were estimated at 1st May to be 500,000 tons, of which 310,000 tons were held by the Ministry. On 1st May, 1947, stocks were 700,000 tons. The cost of the rationing scheme is estimated to have been some £500.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Minister's answer show the panic and folly of potato rationing; further, may I ask him whether he still has swedes and turnips on the brain?

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that his Department has recently reduced the price of potatoes to wholesale merchants, with the result that those traders who have been carrying


stocks in order to even out supplies to consumers are now unable to sell except at a loss; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent this loss.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I could not be aware of this, as there has been no change in the price of potatoes to wholesale merchants.

Mr. Baldwin: I will put my question in a different way. Is it right that the Minister is allowing an extra £1 per ton marginal profit to wholesalers above that allowed by the 1947 Potato Order?

Mr. Strachey: With respect, I do not think it is the case that that is happening.

Seizure of Food (Amending Order)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Food whether he has yet made an order to amend the Seizure of Food Order, 1948, and to bring its provisions within the powers conferred by the regulations under which it was made.

Mr. Strachey: An order amending the Seizure of Food Order, 1948, has been made and came into force on 6th May. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Sir J. Mellor: Did the right hon. Gentleman come to the conclusion that the original order was also ultra vires because it might have imposed a charge?

Mr. Strachey: This matter was fully discussed on a recent occasion in this House. I would only say that I think that the new order puts the matter on a perfectly regular basis.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. De la Bère.

Sir J. Mellor: The House was informed—

Mr. Speaker: I called the next Question. I did not think that we wanted to Debate this matter which we debated the other night.

Sir J. Mellor: Was it unusual, Sir, for me to rise to ask a second supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I called the next Question.

Bread Rationing

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether in view of the improved food position and having regard to the favourable reports on the wheat crops

for the coming season, he will now consider discontinuing bread rationing.

Mr. Strachey: The House may rest assured that we shall de-ration bread the moment we can.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice of having to go without bread with courses at restaurants could easily be brought to an end now, as the position of wheat supplies throughout the world is, for once, satisfactory?

Mr. Strachey: I am grateful for the hon. Member's optimism, but I will wait until a little nearer to the harvest before coming to a decision.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not do away with B.U.'s now?

Tinned Milk (Elderly Persons)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the difficulty of increasing the old age pensioners' ration of fresh milk, he will consider making them an allocation off points of evaporated or condensed milk.

Mr. Strachey: I am sorry, but the extra tinned milk would require too great an expenditure in dollars, and this we cannot afford.

Mrs. Castle: I thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy of his intelligible reply on this important matter, and ask him whether, when he resumes imports of evaporated milk from the United States under the Marshall Plan, he will allocate some of the additional supplies to old people?

Mr. Strachey: We will certainly consider that if and when we are able to resume imports.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Is the Minister aware of the difficulty which old people have in eating many of the ordinary foods and will he consider making it easier for them to get more fresh milk by making the certificate available for more than one month?

Mr. Strachey: We will consider any detailed proposition which my hon. Friend can make on the matter.

Points Rationing (Amending Order)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Food why it was necessary for the Food


(Points Rationing) Order, 1947 (Amendment No. 9) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 846) to come into operation on 25th April, the day after it was made and before it could be laid before Parliament; and why longer notice was not given of the provisions of the order.

Mr. Strachey: The order came into operation on 25th April because that was the first day of a new rationing period. The order revises the points values of certain foods, and decisions upon the revision of points values cannot be made until the latest information about stocks is available. If such changes in points values were known to the public in advance, the equitable operation of the Points Rationing Scheme would be impossible. It was, therefore, neither desirable nor possible to make the order until immediately before the changes were to operate.

Oatmeal Stocks

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Minister of Food if he is now in a position to reconsider the down-pointing of oatmeal in view of the large stocks now held by millers in Scotland and the consequent deterioration of the cereal.

Mr. Strachey: I am giving this matter careful consideration, but according to my information the stocks of oatmeal held by millers are not unduly large.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable number—I will not go as far as to say that there is a large number—of millers in Scotland who are hopelessly overstocked with oatmeal, and that the wholesalers will not take it because they have not got the points?

Mr. Strachey: We know within a very small amount the total stocks. They amount to a very few weeks supply. Whether it is possible to make some imported oats available to millers, which would probably be necessary if this change were made, is another matter which we are considering.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Will the Minister undertake that the down-pointing of processed barley shall march hand in hand with the down-pointing of oatmeal?

Mr. Strachey: That is a very desirable objective.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEER PRODUCTION

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Food whether he will give an estimate of next year's beer production based on the materials he will be allowing brewers.

Mr. Strachey: We must see how much grain is available from the coming harvest before we can make such an estimate.

Brigadier Rayner: In view of the fact that the brewing industry have warned the Minister that the 25 per cent. cut in sugar will lead next year to a drop in production of something between 20 and 30 million gallons, will the Minister say whether the bulk will be made up in the usual way by the addition of even more water?

Mr. Strachey: Whether next year it will be possible to allocate to the brewers either further barley or sugar remains to be seen. We shall certainly do so if we can

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPS (FOREIGN SALE)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Transport why British owners are prohibited from selling old ships to foreign buyers whereas new ships are being built in Britain to foreign orders; and why, exceptionally, the Admiralty Marshal was authorised to offer for sale to foreign buyers the cargo steamer "Empire Sentinel," ex-"Phaedra," built in 1898, at Bremerhaven.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The shortage of tonnage under our control makes it necessary to retain in United Kingdom ownership any ship that can be used. Production of ships for export is an important activity of our shipbuilding yards, as well as the building of the ships ordered by British shipowners. The "Empire Sentinel," an ex-German prize ship, was sold in February, 1947, to a foreign buyer because she was too old and in too bad condition to justify the considerable expenditure required to recondition her. She is not now a British ship. The present transaction relates to an offer for sale 'by public auction by order of the High Court, Admiralty Division, on account of a debt owing to the repairers.

Sir J. Mellor: Would it not be better to keep the new ships under the British flag and sell the old ships to the foreigners while there is a market for them?

Mr. Barnes: We want both.

Sir J. Mellor: Has not the right hon. Gentleman said that many new ships are being sold to foreign buyers at the present time? Could we not keep them and sell the old ones?

Mr. Barnes: I think the hon. Member knows the value of our shipbuilding industry and the maintenance of our shipbuilding capacity for the world as well as for the shipowners of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY

Tree Felling (Green Belt)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that two-thirds of Galley Hill Wood in the green belt area of Essex has, under an order obtained from the Timber Control Department of the Board of Trade, been felled without any prior consultation with either the Essex or London County Councils, who are the green belt authorities concerned, and without any reference to the Joint Planning Committee supervising that area; and whether, in order to preserve historic woodlands and in the interests of good forestry, he will transfer the control of the felling of growing timber to the Forestry Commission, coupled with an instruction that the town planning authority should always be consulted where the wholesale destruction of woodlands is involved.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): In reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on Thursday, 22nd April. In reply to the second part, I do not consider that it is at present desirable to mall the transfer suggested by the hon. Member. I am satisfied that there is adequate co-ordination between all the Departments concerned in this matter.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Prime Minister what qualifications the President of the Board of Trade has to be timber dictator of Great Britain, and is not this another example of dictatorship?

Thinnings

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied with the total of 10,878 acres

woods thinned by the Forestry Commission in the year 1945–46; and what fraction this represents of their total woods between the ages of 15 and 50.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Yes, Sir. I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the figure given on page 17 of the Twenty-seventh Annual Report of the Forestry Commissioners for the year ending 30th September, 1946. This area is approximately 5 per cent. of the total woods of the Forestry Commission between the ages of 15 and 50.

Mr. Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate any improvement in these thinnings this year?

Mr. Williams: Yes. There was an increase last year of something like 3,500 acres, and that will continue to grow.

Commission's Accounts

Mr. J. Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture when the Forestry Commission's accounts for the year ended 30th September, 1947, will be presented to Parliament.

Mr. T. Williams: The accounts of the Forestry Commission for the year ended 30th September, 1947, are due to be presented to Parliament by the Treasury in January, 1949; but statements of expenditure and income of the Forestry Commission will appear in the Commissioners' twenty-eighth Annual Report, which will be presented to Parliament this month, and will then be printed as soon as possible.

Woodlands Census

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture in how many counties the census of woodlands has been completed; and when, and where, the records will be open for inspection.

Mr. T. Williams: The census survey of privately-owned woodlands has been completed in 40 counties. The data for the first 20 counties is being summarised and will be completed within three months. The original maps and individual records for England and Wales are at Alice Holt Forest Research Station, Farnham, Surrey, and for Scotland at 35, Manor Place, Edinburgh, where they may be inspected. Copies will be made and


deposited in conservancy offices, but I am unable to say when these will be available.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the long distances to these places where the maps have been deposited, would it not be possible for the Minister to deposit copies with the county committees, so that they could be seen by the public without having to make these long journeys?

Mr. Williams: The distribution of records beyond conservancy offices would mean an enormous amount of work in copying the maps and record forms, and a vastly increased expenditure of paper as well.

Mr. Vane: Is the Minister aware that a conservancy represents about 10 counties, and that the time, petrol and labour wasted in visiting the conservancy offices will surely outweigh the work involved by making additional copies?

Mr. Williams: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Once the conservancy offices are supplied with copies, I think that ought to be quite sufficient.

Agricultural Land Holdings

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture under what circumstances the Forestry Commission has come to hold 56,500 acres of agricultural land; and what is his policy for the future management or disposal of such land.

Mr. T. Williams: When land is acquired for afforestation it is sometimes necessary to include parcels of agricultural land which cannot conveniently be divorced from the forest lands. Whenever possible, agricultural land that is not wanted for planting in the near future will be transferred to the Agricultural Departments for management. It is, however, convenient for a certain amount of agricultural land to be held by the Forestry Commission, particularly those areas which can be used to establish forest workers' holdings.

Mr. Baldwin: Does that reply mean that the Forestry Commission propose to farm this agricultural land, or will they hand it back to the owners?

Mr. Williams: I said in my reply that it will be transferred to the county committees for management.

Mr. Hollis: Does the Minister mean that the total of 56,000 acres will be substantially reduced in the near future?

Mr. Williams: No. Surely, the hon. Member can only assume from my reply that, when the Forestry Commission purchase an area of land for afforestation, invariably some proportion of it is not suited for afforestation but is suited for continued agricultural use.

Tree Seed Imports

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture how far the import of forest tree seed into this country is at present the monopoly of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. T. Williams: At present, the Forestry Commission imports all seed of Corsican pine, Sitka pruce, Douglas fir and Japanese larch. This is by arrangement with representatives of the nursery trade associations and private owners.

Mr. Vane: Is the Minister aware that no seed of the Douglas fir has been imported this year, and does he imagine that that is the right way to see that proper quantities are available?

Mr. Williams: The woodland owners do not share the hon. Member's opinion, or they would not have invited the Forestry Commission to undertake the job.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Fen Lands (Blowing)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture what effect the recent blowing of fen land is likely to have upon the cropping programmes involved this year; and if he will consider before next Autumn whether the time has come for a carefully prepared cropping policy in the Fens that will ensure proper conservation of the soil.

Mr. T. Williams: I am advised that blowing of fen lands has not been abnormal this season, and does not justify any modification in cropping plans. In drawing up cropping programmes, any special circumstances in particular localities are always taken into consideration

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the Minister aware that, in the opinion of many experienced farmers, the blowing of fen


land, if it goes on, will create a great danger that the peat will disappear altogether, and the fertility of the soil as well, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Williams: My information is that the blowing this year has been greatly exaggerated in some newspapers.

Mr. Stubbs: Is the Minister aware that the solution to the blowing of fen land lies in gaulting the land and heavy rolling, and that where this is done in the Fens of Cambridgeshire, farmers have had little trouble?

German Labour

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there is a quota limiting the number of German prisoners which can be recruited as civilian farm workers.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. The number of German prisoners of war authorised for recruitment as civilian farm workers in England and Wales is 16,000. As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 25th March, this figure may be exceeded to enable a farmer to retain the services of a German who has been working for him regularly as a prisoner of war, if this is essential in the interests of food production.

Mr. Donner: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why would-be employers are being informed by officers of the Minister of Labour that no such quota is in operation, nor has it been for some time?

Mr. Williams: I can only assure the hon. Member that 16,000 have been recruited, and that they are working here civilianised.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister aware that, through the good offices of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and the trade union movement, a considerable number of Germans are being obliged to return to the ruins of Germany although they do not want to go, and will he use his influence with the Minister of Labour to keep such men in this country, where they are willing and able to work, in order to help with the harvest, afforestation and agricultural work generally?

Mr. Williams: I think the House is aware that the Government took a

decision some time ago that 16,000 German prisoners should be retained and civilianised, plus 4,000 for Scotland, and those numbers have been recruited.

Rooks (Destruction)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the inconclusive results of the inquiry carried out by the Agricultural Research Council, he will instruct agricultural executive committees to refrain from ordering any further mass destruction of rooks until further investigation has been made.

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture what instructions or advice he has sent to the county agricultural committees about the destruction of rooks this year.

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that his recent directive to county executives for the destruction of rooks is causing anxiety on scientific as well as on humanitarian, grounds; and if he will modify this, directive, at any rate, pending further inquiries as to the probable consequences of the large-scale destruction of these birds.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the advantages and disadvantages which have resulted from the wholesale destruction of rooks by agricultural executive committees.

Mr. T. Williams: With permission, I will make a statement at the end of Questions.

Later—

Mr. Williams: I am glad to have this opportunity of correcting certain misunderstandings regarding the efforts of my Department to prevent undue damage to crops by rooks. The investigation carried out in 1944–1946 by the British Trust for Ornithology disclosed that there had been a marked rise in the rook population in several areas. This may 'have been associated with a decline in rook shooting owing to the scarcity and high cost of cartridges. It has also coincided with the increase in corn acreage in the past ten years. I accept the findings of the investigation that on balance the rook may do as much good as harm to


agriculture, but that where numbers are excessive' the harm can outweigh the good. Nor is there any doubt that farmers in the neighbourhood of large rookeries find it profitless to sow grain crops and are discouraged from maintaining the tillage area.
In the circumstances, the county agricultural executive committees, which already possess powers under the Rooks Order, 1940, were asked as in previous years to take action, preferably by the voluntary collaboration of landowners and farmers, to reduce rook populations where dense concentrations exist—with the emphasis on "dense"—and they were asked to ensure that the action taken was effective. It was suggested to committees that, in those few cases where directions had to be served, they should prescribe a definite number of rooks to be destroyed, and that numbers should be about 80 per cent. of the rookery population. The destruction of young rooks to the extent of 80 per cent. of the normal population of the rookery will still leave sufficient young rooks to maintain the rookery but at a smaller instead of an increasing size. There was and is no intention of reducing the national rook population by heavy and indiscriminate slaughter all over the country and the memorandum issued to committees will not have that result.
Effective action can only be taken during a short period of the year, and I am confident that committees will use their powers with moderation and discrimination.

Mr. Symonds: As it is agreed that rooks do good as well as harm, is it wise to carry out their destruction on such a vast scale? Who is to decide when destruction has been carried far enough, and how?

Mr. Williams: I do not agree that destruction is taking place on such a vast scale. Only in areas where the number of rooks is excessive will action be taken.

Mr. Philips Price: Is it not an exaggeration to say that 80 per cent. of the rook population should be destroyed? Does not my hon. Friend mean that 80 per cent. of the young birds should be destroyed and that the number of older birds tare thus not affected at this rate.

Mr. Williams: Action is taken against the rook population in any area where it is recognised as excessive.

Mr. Chamberlain: The Minister has said nothing about the humane destruction of these birds. Will he give appropriate instructions, because there has been a good deal of evidence of inhumane treatment?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member will bring to my notice any cases of inhumane destruction, I will look into them.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Minister aware that it is inhumane to destroy birds while they are nesting? Referring to Question 60, what are the "humanitarian grounds" as applied to the destruction of rooks?

Mr. Williams: I have not gone into the scientific methods of humane destruction of rooks. If the hon. Gentleman presses for details of such methods, I shall need to make further inquiries.

Mr. Assheton: How did the Minister decide upon the figure of So per cent.? In many cases a smaller figure may be required, although in some cases 80 per cent. may be correct.

Mr. Williams: This figure was arrived at after consultation with, and advice and guidance from, county executive committees and farmers in areas where rooks are known to be excessive.

Mr. Assheton: Has every county committee agreed that 80 per cent. is the correct figure?

Mr. Williams: There is not an excess in every county.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Will the Minister give a pledge against the shooting of rooks when they are nesting? That aspect is disturbing to most hon. Members. How will it be known when 80 per cent. of the birds have been destroyed?

Mr. Williams: I cannot give any such assurance because, if all the young fledglings are permitted to mature, they will be infinitely more difficult to destroy.

Mr. Vane: Has this drive against rooks been undertaken under pressure from the Kitchen Committee?

Mr. Williams: I can assure my hon. Friend there is no collusion between me and the Kitchen Committee.

Mr. Chamberlain: Some hon. Members appear to laugh at the idea of humane treatment of these birds. Will the Minister undertake to consider this matter and then give instructions to the county committees accordingly? This is most important.

Mr. Williams: I can assure my hon. Friend that this is not a matter for humour. It was very carefully considered before we made the statement today. Expert scientists and practical farmers were consulted before we took a decision. If there is to be a reduction in the rook population in specified areas where there is known to be an excess, now is the time to do the job.

Department's Petrol Consumption

Mr. J. Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the total amount and cost of petrol used by his Department in the first three months of 1948; and what were the figures in the first three months of 1947.

Mr. T. Williams: The total quantity of petrol used on the business of my Department (including that used by the county agricultural executive committees for executive and operational purposes) during the first three months of 1948 was approximately 2,960,000 gallons, at a cost of £275,000 as compared with 2,465,000 gallons at a cost of £212,000 in the first three months of 1947, when travel conditions were difficult and much work on the land was held up.

Carrion Crows

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the great increase in the number of carrion crows in many parts of the country; and whether he will instruct county agricultural executive committees to concentrate on the destruction of these birds in preference to killing rooks.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes. County agricultural executive committees are already taking such steps as are practicable to deal with these birds. Carrion crows are, however, generally found only in pairs, which makes the problem very different from that of dealing with the gregarious rook.

Mr. Vane: Does that answer mean that the Minister's Department only deals with the easy part of the job?

County Committees

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Agriculture in how many counties he anticipates that the turnover of county agricultural executive committees will exceed £1 million in the current financial year; and whether he is satisfied that all county agricultural executive committees are provided with a properly qualified staff to undertake costings and control expenditure.

Mr. T. Williams: If by "turnover" the hon. Member means expenditure, the answer to the first part of the Question is nine. If, however, he means the sum of income and expenditure, the number is about 30. The answer to the second part of the Question is: "Yes, Sir"; I am now satisfied that this is so, except in a very small number of cases, which are being reconsidered.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOODS VEHICLES (CARRIERS' LICENCES)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will arrange for table 130 of the Monthly Digest of Statistics to be expanded to show how many new registrations for goods vehicles issued each month are in respect of A, A contract, B and C licences, respectively;
(2) if he will arrange to have expanded table 131 of the Monthly Digest of Statistics so that the division is shown of licences current for goods vehicles as between A, A contract, B and C licences.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. Monthly figures with respect to issues of carriers' licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, are not available and, in any case, it would not be practicable to relate them to the figures in the tables, which refer to Excise licences.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Oliver Stanley: In view of the Motion appearing on the Order Paper in the name of the Prime Minister, may I ask the Leader of the House what are the plans for Business today?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): We wish today to complete the Committee and Report stages and the Third Reading of the Motor Spirit Bill, which may take a little time. Then there is the House of Commons Members' Fund Bill, on which we do not anticipate any great trouble. I am very sorry to rush the House on the Motor Spirit Bill, but I am afraid it is inevitable. It has to go to another place, and I think that all of us on all sides of the House, are anxious to get such relaxation as we can in petrol rationing by the date at which the Government are aiming—namely, 1st June. Unless we get the Bill tonight, that date would be imperilled, and I am afraid we would have to postpone this welcome relaxation to the motoring population. Therefore, I ask for the good will and co-operation of the House in getting through tonight our programme for all the remaining stages of the Motor Spirit Bill, in addition to the Members' Fund Bill. We do not anticipate any controversy about the latter.

Mr. Stanley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which may have some bearing on the speed at which, it will be possible, with all the best will in the world, to conclude this Business? Is the House to have the advantage of the presence of the Minister of Fuel and Power who, we understand, has another engagement elsewhere in the building?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman has touched on a very relevant point. My right hon. Friend is still engaged on the Gas Bill in Committee, which is taking its course not quite as quickly as we had hoped it would. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends know something about that, as do we. I am afraid that my

right hon. Friend will be occupied on the Gas Bill, but he will be ably represented here by the Law Officers of the Crown and by the Parliamentary Secretary. As it is largely a legal Bill, the Law Officers will be competent to deal with it. We will endeavour to give the House the maximum service we can.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman will not complain if, in the 'absence of the Minister primarily responsible for this Bill and because of the possibility of our not receiving explanations straight from the horse's mouth—if that is how one can describe information from the Minister of Fuel and Power—the proceedings take longer than anticipated.

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend will do his best to give such time to the House as he can, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulty. We will do all we can to meet the proper requirements of the House, but I must point out once again that all parties are anxious that such relaxations as can be given to the motoring population should be given by the date we have set, 1st June.—[Interruption]—I beg hon. Members not to get into the wrong frame of mind about this. Unless we get the Bill expeditiously it will be impossible to give relaxations to motorists by that date. Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for the good will and co-operation of all parties in the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 80.

Division No. 137.
AYES.
[3.41 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Daggar, G.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith South)
Bramall, E. A.
Daines, P.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Attewell, H. C.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Brown, George (Belper)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Ayles, W. H.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, S, O. (Merthyr)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Deer, G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Balfour, A.
Byers, Frank
Diamond, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Callaghan, James
Dodds, N. N.


Barstow, P. G.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Barton, G.
Chamberlain, R. A
Dumpleton, C. W.


Battley, J. R.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Bechervaise, A. E
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Benson, G.
Cluse, W. S
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Beswick, F.
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Bing, G. H. C.
Collindridge, F.
Farthing, W. J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Bowen, R.
Crawley, A.
Foot, M. M.




Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Lipson, D. L.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stross, Dr. B.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
McAdam, W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Gilzean, A.
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mack, J. D.
Sylvester, G. O.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McLeavy, F.
Symonds, A. L.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Gunter, R. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Guy, W. H.
Mellish, R. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham E.)
Tiffany, S


Hardman, D. R.
Moyle, A.
Titterington, M. F.


Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Tolley, L.


Harrison, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Usborne, Henry


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, G. H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Henderson, Rt. Hn A. (Kingswinford)
Parkin, B. T.
Viant, S. P.


Hicks, G.
Paten, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Walkden, E.


Holman, P,
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.
Weitzman, D.


House, G.
Peart, T. F.
Wells, P, L. (Faversham)


Hoy, J.
Perrins, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Popplewell, E.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hynd, J. B. (Atterclilte)
Price, M. Philips
Wigg, George


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Reeves, J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rogers, G. H. R,
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wise, Major F. J.


Jenkins, R. H.
Sharp, Granville
Woodburn, A.


Key, C. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wyatt, W.


King, E. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Kinley, J.
Skinnard, F. W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Snow, J. W.



Levy, B. W.
Soskice, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sparks, J. A.
Mr. Simmons and




Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nutting, Anthony.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hollis, M. C.
Odey, G. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Baxter, A. B.
Hope, Lord J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Pickthorn, K.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Butcher, H. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Robinson, Roland


Channon, H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crowder, Capt. John E
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smithers, Sir W.


De la Bère, R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
MacLeod, J.
Studholme, H. G.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr E. L.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Touche, G. C.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marples, A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Glyn, Sir R.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Grimston, R. V.
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Harden, J. R E.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Major Ramsay and


Head, Brig. A. H
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Major Conant.

Orders of the Day — MOTOR SPIRIT (REGULATION) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Offences by retailers of motor spirit.)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 1, line at the end, to insert:
Provided that this Section shall not apply to a person carrying on such business who has only one pump, and if there is no other such business in the same parish.
This Amendment deals with the way the Bill affects the single pump installation, which is causing a great deal of disquiet throughout the country. I have asked the Minister how many of these single-pump installations there are, and he has replied that he does not know. The Russell Vick Committee said there were a large number of single-pump installations which, with very few exceptions, were operated by petrol retailers. Unless some system such as this Amendment proposes is adopted, these men will suffer great hardship. They are not the type of men who in the past have been, or in the future are likely to be, involved in black market transactions. They are small people dealing with the essential needs of the rural parishes. They have to have commercial petrol in order that farmers can obtain petrol for their tractors. Equally, they must have private petrol in order that those who are using their cars for shopping, marketing and pleasure should have some petrol.
I was alarmed when I heard the Minister talk about these single-pump installations in his Second Reading speech. He agreed that the restriction would be a disadvantage to them and continued:
I will not deny it for one moment, but it is fair to point out that these single-pump proprietors throughout the war and up to now have had a substantial advantage over the pre-war position because of the existence of Pool petrol. Prior to the war there were no less than 30 different brands of petrol, and if a man had only one pump he could stock only one brand. Now there will be, in effect, two brands of petrol, of which a single pump garage will be able to stock one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1948; Vol. 450, c. 927.]
Surely the Minister himself is aware of the injustice of those remarks? If a man had only one out of 30 brands before the

war, by stocking that brand he was not prevented from supplying anyone who needed petrol. They could equally take any other petrol instead of R.O.P., National Benzol or, any of the 30 brands. Under this Bill the Minister is putting the small business man into the position where, if he supplies the wrong kind of car with the wrong kind of petrol, he will be subject to a fine of £500 and, in effect, will lose his business. The suggestion in this Amendment is that in the limited number of cases where in a village there is only one pump, the proprietor shall be allowed to supply red or white petrol.
Is that a great deal to ask? I have in my hand a letter sent out by the Minister to all garage proprietors in the country. It provides that the lucky holder of Z coupons—those who have trade plates—will be able to have their coupons exchanged either for red or white petrol. Surely if an exception is made for trade plate holders there is a good reason to say that, in this limited number of cases of the small man in rural areas, the one man petrol business should be treated in exactly the same way, so that if someone comes for petrol for his tractors the proprietor can supply him equally with white petrol or with red petrol, whichever he stocks.
I understand the Minister is thinking of some method by which these men may be allowed to give private petrol against commercial coupons. I hope the Minister will make rather more clear the remarks which he made on this point in his Second Reading speech. It is rather difficult to see how he intends to carry out that suggestion. Is the single pump garage to have to put up a sign "Private petrol," and then be allowed to supply commercial users with that petrol? If that were the Minister's intention—and it is a great advance on what he said a few minutes earlier in his speech—I should have thought it would be better if these people did not have to advertise private or commercial petrol, because if they put up the sign "Private petrol" it will mean that many of the local farmers will think it is an offence to buy petrol for their tractors from these pumps.
While I welcome that concession—if indeed it is a concession—I think it should go further, so that some of the actions which create offences under this Clause should not apply to the single-pump


garage. The first I have in mind is Subsection (2, a), as a result of which the proprietor has to have all his pumps marked "Commercial" if they contain commercial petrol. What will happen now? If he is allowed, by the concession which has been hinted at, to supply private petrol to commercial users, will he then have committed an offence under Subsection (2, a)? That is probably a matter for the Attorney-General to answer, rather than the Minister, but I hope the Minister will make this concession clear, because it certainly was not clear from his speech, nor is it clear from the instructions which he sent round to the motor retailers.
I think the easiest way out of this difficulty is to exempt these few cases quite clearly from the provisions of this Subsection. If I am wrong in that and the Minister's concession is adequate, I would ask that that concession be put in the Bill so that all can see it. It is no good saying, as he did in his speech and in the instructions, that people will be able to have this concession in certain circumstances. We want to know to whom it will apply, and I submit that the words I used in my Amendment would cover the cases in point. This Amendment is not intended to defeat the object of the Bill. It is to make this Bill work in rural areas where, unless some concession like this is granted, the Bill will be a harsh and unjust burden on many of these men. Many of the men who set up one-pump businesses in small rural parishes are ex-Service men from the last war who, on demobilisation, returned to their villages and bought this one pump. It is very hard that, two years after demobilisation, they should in effect be put out of business by this Bill.

4.0 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I support the Amendment. I wonder whether the Minister has envisaged the situation which will arise if some concession is not made in the rural districts of Scotland. It is possible that if this matter is left as at present, not only will a large number of single-pump men go out of business—and there are a considerable number of such men in Scotland—but if someone goes to a pump which has not the supply of petrol which he requires, he may have to travel 20 to 40 miles before

he comes to another pump. Is that what is intended by the Minister? It seems most unreasonable that there should be that particular prejudice against rural areas.
There is another point concerning the Scottish hotel keeper in outlying districts. Many hotels in the rural districts of Scotland have a single pump, and it is recognised as part of their business. The right hon. Gentleman's provisions as to petrol generally have hit these Scottish rural hotel businesses desperately hard already. If he wishes confirmation of that, I hope that he will himself consult that distinguished Socialist Mr. Thomas Johnston, who will give him all the facts and figures. I ask the Minister to consider very carefully this further burden to those already put on the rural hotel keper in Scotland, because it is a little more than he can bear. It is not reasonable to expect that a man should go 20 to 40 miles on his tractor or in his motorcar in order to get petrol for the purposes for which he is entitled to have petrol. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about this, because it is creating a desperately serious situation in the scattered areas in the North and West of Scotland.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I wish to raise one point which I think is not covered by the Amendment. That is the case of the private estate or any business which has one pump for the use of their employees and vehicles employed in their business or on the estate. The ordinary agricultural estate may be supplying tractors as well as the agent's or farm manager's car, and unless some concession is given to put commercial petrol in his car, he may have to go many miles to get the proper petrol he requires, which will be an unnecessary waste of petrol.

Mr. Baldwin: I wish to support the Amendment as the representative of another part of this country, an area bordering on the remote hills of Wales, where the same difficulties will arise as in Scotland. It will be extremely difficult for these men if there is only one pump to serve a certain district. I hope that the Minister will be able to think of a way in which they will be able to carry on business, and so help the needs of the district which they serve. There are many districts in my constituency where one


could go for 20 miles and find only one single-pump garage. That means great hardship to people in the area.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I fully appreciate the difficulty of this problem. It was, I think, one of the greatest difficulties presented by the proposal of the Russell Vick Committee. The Amendment is quite unacceptable, because if we were to insert the words in the Bill, it would drive a coach and four through its provisions. What the Amendment would imply is that wherever in a particular parish there was only one garage with one pump, even if there were a lot of garages with more than one pump, that garage would be free to sell red or yellow petrol to whomever it wished. There is a certain difficulty in understanding exactly how the Amendment would work. If there is only one, pump, the garage proprietor is bound to sell from that pump one type of petrol. I understand that the idea behind the Amendment is to exempt such garages. I think that that is to ride completely through the provisions of the Bill. That would apply not only in rural areas but throughout the whole of London. If one found that one particular parish had, say, only one garage with one pump, it would be completely free. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will realise that that is no solution to this difficult problem.
I have been taken to task for saying in my Second Reading speech that those proprietors of single-pump garages were in a better position during the war than they had been before, when there were many different brands of petrol. I was only quoting the view of the Motor Agents Association, who certainly agree that that is the case. If we take the view that no one minds what sort of petrol he has, even when there are 30 different brands of petrol, I fully agree that it would not make any difference. But a number of motorists were careful before the war about the type of petrol which they bought, and that was bound to affect the single pump man.
I would like to explain more fully, in response to the invitation of hon. Members, what we have in mind. I am satisfied that the only possible way of dealing with this problem is to make it practicable in certain instances—and I will say

more clearly what I would do in a moment—for these single-pump garages to supply commercial vehicles with white or yellow petrol. There is no difficulty about that. The only difficulty at the moment which would arise is that in collecting commercial coupons from these vehicles such garages would not be able to replace the white petrol in their tanks. We can take care of that by granting them licences. But I want to add this: it may be necessary—I am not committing myself at the moment—to put some restriction on the sale of white petrol against red coupons which we shall do under the Motor Fuel Order if it looks as if that will lead to a serious loop-hole. It makes not the slightest difference so far as these people are concerned, because we shall have powers to licence and can exempt them in any case. I want to give the Committee warning in case, later on, we decide to do that.
That is not the idea with regard to all the 7,000 single-pump garages. I have never refused to give that figure. The figure I could not give in reply to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) was the number of single-pump garages where there was only one in the same parish. I have not that information. I understand that there are 7,000 altogether. It would be quite out of the question to license every one of them, because, as the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) pointed out during the Second Reading Debate, there obviously would be considerable danger that, as soon as a garage is in this position, private motorists would come with red coupons and exchange them for ordinary petrol, and this would cut right across the Bill and the things which we must stop.
If we have to provide licences not too frequently, it should be possible to keep an eye on the turnover of those garages given licences to make sure there was no abuse of that kind. There certainly is a risk. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right. As soon as it becomes known that such a garage is in a position to replace its white petrol against red coupons, of course anyone with red coupons will tend to go there. The only way to check that is by asking the Petroleum Board to watch deliveries fairly closely, so as to see that they are not rising in a phenomenal way. If they


were, it would, of course, suggest that all was not well.
We have in mind—and this I think will reassure one or two hon. Members who have spoken—that in the case where a single-pump garage is, say, 10 miles from another one, we would be prepared to grant a licence. I would prefer not to tie myself down completely at the moment. We have sought the advice of the Petroleum Board, who have been very helpful, and they do not take the view that it will be quite such a serious problem as some hon. Members suggest. There is the possibility where we have, say, two single-pump garages in neighbouring villages, where one chooses one type of petrol or the other type of petrol, that between them they may have more or less the same turnover as before. I agree that in the case of one only it is a different matter, and that there may be difficulties in making arrangements of that sort.
We will try to do what we can to save any hardship that there may be. As I told the House on Second Reading, we have been unable to find any sort of compensation scheme. We discussed that with the Motor Agents' Association, and they agreed with us that they do not think that there is any such scheme that is practicable, but I am satisfied that with the licensing provisions that I have indicated, we shall be able to deal with all the more serious cases. I hope that on that understanding we may now proceed.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: There is one point arising out of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He gave instances of two garages in comparatively near villages, one dealing with white and the other with red petrol, and suggested that the total turnover of the two would not be different. I agree. But that does not solve the individual difficulty of the man who lives in one village or the other. In both those cases, he will have to use considerably more petrol in going to get his supplies of petrol. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell his regional petroleum officers that in cases such as that, where a man who has white petrol may have to go 10 miles to fill his tank, he will take that into account when considering his application for supplementary coupons.

Mr. Bowles: I remember that when I was a boy, and before there was a liability to take out motor licences

at all, pumps had not been invented and petrol was supplied in cans. It has been admitted in every speech that has been made today that the amount of business done by the parish single petrol pump garage is not very big. I should like to suggest to my right hon. Friend that these small out of the way garages with one pump should have delivered to them when the bulk petrol is put into the pump's tank an adequate amount of red or white petrol in cans, whichever is the one he wants not to go into his pump, and by that he may get over the difficulty which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made very clear. I do not sec any objection to the delivery to these small businesses of petrol of the kind they want in cans.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: While I think that there might be something in what the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has said, I was disappointed with the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I hoped that he was about to acknowledge the fact that there were a number of these single-pump stations serving a very large area, and that he was going to put forward the proposal of an additional pump in some cases. He talked about making it possible for these garages to collect commercial coupons against white petrol. But will that not lead to a black market in the immediate neighbourhood? Surely it must do so. The farmer or the local commercial man will surrender commercial coupons and get white petrol in large quantities. White petrol will be a very valuable commodity and I should have thought that there was a great danger in the rural areas of creating a considerable black market. I think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Nuneaton might be better, or that the Minister should take active steps to see that a second pump is introduced into these rural areas.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I think that the words "such business" which occur a second time in the Amendment refer to the business of supplying petrol and not the business of supplying petrol from one pump. I would not support the Amendment as indicated in its wider sense, but I do not think that the hon. Member who moved it intended in that way.

Mr. Turton: The word "and" has crept in, and if that comes out I think that the Amendment will make sense.

4.15 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This Amendment is directed more particularly to the benefit of those who are obliged to go to a single pump, rather than being designed from the point of view of those carrying on the business of supplying petrol. I do not say that we should not consider both cases, but that is not the principal purpose of this Amendment. There was one specific instance referred to by the noble Lord the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby)—that is, the case of the private pump. That is not specifically within the Amendment, but it is an important class of case. There may be on an estate—or it may occur in certain industrial premises—a single private pump supplying considerable quantities to those using petrol on the estate or in the works. I think from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that his intention is that in those cases the pumps should always be filled with white petrol, and that it should be available to all users. This is a matter of considerable importance to a number of individuals, and I think the Government should state their intention more specifically.

Mr. Turton: I was very disappointed at the Minister's attitude. I may not have drafted this Amendment as well as the Ministry have drafted theirs, but I think that if the word "and" is taken out it is reasonably drafted for a private Member. The important thing is that the Minister's concession really comes down to nothing. A farmer who is probably living four miles from any village and ten miles from the nearest mallet town, might find himself having a 28-mile turn-round for petrol. It is not fair to the inhabitants of the rural areas. Again, the right hon. Gentleman suggests that where there are two neighbouring villages the proprietor of the pump in one will choose white and the other red. He clearly does not know the amount of business done in rural areas. No garage proprietor in a rural area, with the present standard ration, or the shopping ration, would choose a private pump installation rather than a commercial installation. He has to think of the agricultural need, and that is far greater than the private demand. I hope the Minister will reconsider his whole attitude, which

shows a complete ignorance of rural conditions, and I believe will make this Bill unpopular and harsh to the people in the rural areas.

Brigadier Peto: The difficulty I see is this. I am thinking of a particular rural area in a remote part of North Devon, where the petrol pump is part of the village smithy. There is no garage in the place, and I imagine there is no place where you could store, say, 1,000 gallons of petrol in safety. Would the Minister be prepared to provide some form of storage—for example a pit—which need not be expensive, but should not have to be paid for by the man who runs a single pump, so that he can store private petrol in cans?

Mr. Bowles: I do not know whether he would have to store as much as 1,000 gallons. The whole case rests on the smallness of the business. I remember that the R.A.F. had a large store of five or six gallon cans made of much thicker material than the ordinary petrol can. These would be fireproof, and not many of them would be needed for the smaller garages.

Brigadier Peto: I was thinking more of the usual petrol cans, and not about the jerrycan. They would be quite suitable. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us if they exist in sufficient quantities.

Mr. Gaitskell: We have been into the point about cans, and the difficulty is that there is a very great shortage. The Petroleum Board discontinued the use of petrol cans in 1940, when they had 1,400,000. They have now 100,000—barely enough to meet their requirements for deliveries of special types of petrol. Incidentally, they also dismantled the can filling machinery at the depots, and they did not replace the vehicles which they used for delivering cans. They only have the normal tank vehicles now, and these would be quite unsuitable for this purpose. I do not think we could contemplate, to deal with this problem, the construction of the large number of cans that would be required, at least 500,000 according to the Petroleum Board. There is the further point, that there is difficulty about storage. We might get over that, but there are fairly stringent regulations made by local authorities. Finally, there is the financial difficulty—there is an additional


cost of about 3½d. a gallon in delivery in cans. That could be passed on to the consumer by the single pump garages, but I do not think they would be keen to do it, because it might affect their business.
If I did not view the Amendment from the point of view of the local consumers, but rather from that of the garage pro prietors, the Committee would agree, I think, that that was because of the way it was moved. The hon. Member had primarily in mind the position of the garage proprietors. But I would like to say this about local consumers. I do feel that some hon. Members are making an awful lot of this question of distance. For an ordinary car, 10 miles represents about half or a third of a gallon. To get their petrol 10 miles from their home does not seem to me a particularly difficult thing for people to do, without having to get extra petrol to do it. People should be able to make arrangements quite easily to pick up their petrol when they need it in these rural areas, where they are accustomed to go a long distance for their supplies.
We cannot take too many risks in this business. The noble Lord suggested, quite properly, that this scheme would give rise to a serious black market. It would be most dangerous, I admit, if we kept no control over the single-pump garages and did not limit the licences. That is why we must limit the licences to where they are genuinely necessary in the interests of the local consumers. On the point about the estate pumps, I do not think that unless there were special circumstances we should contemplate licensing them. What I should assume is that they would probably require commercial petrol, the greater part probably being needed for agricultural purposes; and in so far as they wanted to obtain white petrol they could make arrangements to get it from the next neighbouring garage. If however, there were great distances involved, we could adopt the same procedure and grant them licences to enable them to replace their white petrol against red coupons. But I do not think there is any occasion for special treatment just because it is an estate pump.
I think I have answered all the various points that have been made. I must reaffirm that this Amendment, even when interpreted in the other way, is still

letting out far too much. But that does not amount to an essential difference of opinion between us. What the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is wanting, on his new interpretation, is that where there is only one pump in a parish it should automatically be exempt from the scheme. It cannot be exempted in the sense that it can supply both types of petrol from the same pump. We cannot deal with the problem by cans. Therefore, I submit the only way is to enable the garages to supply white petrol. If in every case where there is only one pump they might supply white petrol, that I think would achieve exactly the same object As the hon. Member desires. But I am not prepared to go as far as that, because I do not think the fact that there is only one pump in a parish requires it. We will grant licences wherever we think it necessary, but not where we do not.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: It is clear the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the difficulties of the agricultural communities living in rural areas and separated by long distances. The hon. Member shakes his head. He does not live in one of these rural areas and does not appreciate their needs.

Mr. Tolley: We on this side appreciate the difficulties of the countryside as much as the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.

Mr. Hudson: The Minister does not appreciate them, or he would not have taken up this very harsh non possumus attitude. It is clear there is going to be a waste of petrol. The right hon. Gentleman said it did not matter wasting half a gallon—

Mr. Gaitskell: I did not say that. I said it should be possible to make arrangements to pick up petrol at the ordinary time and place. I am making it plain that I do not regard this as an occasion for demanding extra petrol.

Mr. Hudson: I fully appreciate that. Every word the right hon. Gentleman has said merely confirms me, and will confirm the agricultural community in the belief that he does not understand the problems that face them.

Sir Richard Acland: My view is that the Opposition enlarges difficulties in order to ask for concessions


which, if granted, will destroy the purpose of the Bill. These difficulties are much less than the Opposition make out. Every rural one-pump man will choose to stock red petrol, so no difficulty can arise for the farmer, and the only possible inconvenience is to the private motorist.

Mr. Assheton: The farmer may have a motorcar which he uses for other than farm purposes.

Sir R. Acland: The private motorist in the country, be he farmer, doctor or shopper, is using his motorcar almost invariably for the purpose of taking him from his remote village into the nearest market centre or county town for one purpose or another. It is a convenience to my wife as a shopper, or as a member of the rural district council, to be able to get petrol at our local garage, which is a mile and a half away. It happens to be a two-pump garage, but supposing that

it were a one-pump garage which chose to supply red petrol, it would not be an intolerable burden for us to have to remember to get our tanks filled up on each occasion when we went to Exeter.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Turton: We are not talking about Exeter, but about remote areas in the country.

Sir R. Acland: Even in the remote areas, the reason why a motorist gets supplementary petrol is to carry him to the more populated centres where two-pump garages exist. That is the position in 99 cases out of a 100 and the hundredth case will be exactly that type of case where the Minister will grant a licence.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 155.

Division No. 138.]
AYES.
[4.32 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Odey, G. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Baldwin, A. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Baxter, A. B
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Pickthorn, K.


Bowen, R.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Pitman, I. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Langford-Holt, J.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Prescott, Stanley


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepbum, P. G. T.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Butcher, H. W
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ropner, Col. L


Carson, E
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Challen, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H R
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Channon, H
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Maclean, F. H. R (Lancaster)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
MacLeod, J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cuthbert, W. N
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Drewe, C
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Turton, R. H.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E L.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Mellor, Sir J
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Sir A. S. L (Partick)


Harden, J R E
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Neven-Spence, Sir B
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Head, Brig A. H
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. Studholme and




Major Conant.




NOES.


Acland, Sir Richard
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Daines, P.


Adams, W T (Hammersmith, South)
Bramall, E. A
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Attewell, H. C
Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)
Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S. W.)


Ayles, W. H.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Deer, G.


Bacon, Miss A
Callaghan, James
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Balfour, A
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Diamond, J.


Barstow, P G
Chamberlain, R. A
Dodds, N. N


Barton, C
Champion, A. J
Donovan, T


Battley, J R
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dumpleton, C. W


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cluse, W S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Benson, G
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Beswick, F
Collindridge, F
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Bing, G. H. C.
Comyns, Dr. L
Ewart, R.


Binns, J.
Crawley, A
Farthing, W. J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Daggar, G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.




Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McAdam, W.
Skinnard, F. W.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
McGhee, H. G.
Snow, J. W.


Gilzean, A.
Mack, J. D.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sparks, J. A.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Stubbs, A. E.


Grey, C. F.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Gunter, R. J.
Mitchison, G. R
Symonds, A. L.


Guy, W. H.
Monslow, W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Moyle, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hardy, E. A.
Oldfield, W. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Harrison, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Tiffany, S.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palmer, A. M. F.
Titterington, M. F


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Parkin, B. T.
Tolley, L.


Hicks, G.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Usborne, Henry


Holman, P.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Peart, T. F.
Viant, S. P.


House, G.
Perrins, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hoy, J.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Price, M. Philips
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Reeves, J.
Wigg, George


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jenkins, R. H.
Robens, A.
Woodburn, A.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wyatt, W.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Kinley, J.
Sharp, Granville



Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Levy, B. W.
Simmons, C. J.
Mr. Pearson and


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skeffington, A. M.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 24, to leave out "prove," and to insert:
satisfy the court that it might reasonably be true.
This Amendment raises a point of some substance and of considerable principle. It is provided under Clause 1 that a person can establish his innocence even though red petrol be found in his pump, or if he be found putting the wrong kind of petrol into a private motor vehicle, provided he satisfies all the conditions set out in the proviso. He has to prove several negatives. He has to prove that the petrol was put into the pump without his consent, that he did not know it was in the pump, and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent petrol being put into the pump as he ought to have exercised having regard to all the circumstances.
It would appear that there are certain similarities between the case of a person charged with the criminal offence of receiving stolen goods and a person charged with having red petrol in the wrong pump. Under the law as it stands, once a person is found in possession of something proved to have been stolen, the burden of proof passes from prosecution to him, and under this Measure the burden of proof also passes from the

prosecution to the person accused. A great deal of importance must attach to the extent of the burden falling upon the person accused. As I understand it, this Bill casts a heavier burden of proof upon a person accused of having the wrong petrol in his pump than the burden of proof cast upon someone charged with receiving goods well knowing them to have been stolen. We should try to bring the degree of the burden of proof in this case into line with that resting upon the person charged with being a receiver. Where a man is charged with receiving he has not to prove his innocence, but if he satisfies the jury that his explanation of the manner in which he came into possession of the stolen goods may reasonably be true, then he is entitled to be acquitted even though the jury are not satisfied about the truth of his explanation. That is the law according to Rex versus Abramovitch in relation to receivers.
The point of this Amendment is to provide the same burden of proof so that no greater burden of proof will be cast upon anyone charged under Clause 1 of this Bill. If the Government, in that spirit of co-operation and goodwill which we hope to see in several instances, were to accept this Amendment, they would not be encouraging the black


market in any way or weakening the Measure, but would be merely safeguarding against an innocent person being wrongly convicted. If a person is to satisfy the negative conditions of this proviso, what more can he do than go into the witness box and say "I did not know the petrol was in this pump"? He cannot call other people to prove his absence of knowledge, but can only express his own knowledge. The court may say that while it is true he did not know, he has not proved that he did not know, and therefore he must be found guilty of the offence.
4.45 p.m.
On the other hand, if the court is able to say, after hearing evidence on oath and the cross-examination by the prosecution, that the evidence of the accused might reasonably be true that he did not know that the petrol was in his pump, that man, I suggest to the Committee, should be acquitted. He will not be acquitted, I suggest unless the Amendment be accepted. Perhaps the Attorney-General will differ from me in his view of the law. He may say that the object of the Clause is to provide that where a defence consistent with innocence might reasonably be true, the person concerned should not be convicted. My only reply would be that the Clause is very badly drafted if that is the purpose that it is intended to achieve. If the Attorney-General is not prepared to accept the wording of the Amendment I hope he will undertake to reconsider the wording of the Clause to make sure that the burden of proof in this case is no greater than upon a person accused of being in possession of stolen goods.

Mr. Blackburn: Before I discuss this question it should be said, in fairness to the Attorney-General, that the proviso in regard to defence which he has incorporated in the Bill was not recommended by the Russell Vick Committee. The Attorney-General has gone further in the direction of protecting the accused than Russell Vick himself who, I understand is a member of the Liberal Party.
The same point arises on Clause 1 as upon Clause 2. This is an issue upon which Parliament has to make up its mind. I believe that it is a point of very great importance and I feel very deeply

indeed upon it. The narrow issue is whether Parliament will pass a Measure which, by its terms, obliges a court to convict a man who, in the opinion of the court, is just as likely to be innocent as guilty. That is the effect of the Clause. I pointed out a week ago that under Clause 2, if there is a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused, he is still convicted. The Attorney-General did not take that view, and I then stated he was wrong. I now propose to attempt to prove that he was wrong in the view which he gave to the House.
This matter is very serious. An opinion given by the Attorney-General in this House has no validity in the courts, who are not entitled to consider what an Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, has stated as his opinion. There is a specific case on this matter, on 25th May, 1943, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, before the Lord Chief Justice, and Lords Humphries and Ellis. It was a case in which the onus of proof was clearly placed upon the defendant. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that the case is a stronger one than that which I am citing. In the case to which I have referred there was to be a conviction, unless the accused proved otherwise. In the present case, the accused has not only to prove otherwise but to prove (a) and (b) under Clause 1, and (a), (b) and (c) under Clause 2.
The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal was:
Where such an onus of proof is cast upon the defendant he has to satisfy that onus of proof in just the same way as a plaintiff in a civil action has to satisfy the onus of proof resting upon him.
Perhaps I might read the specific words of the decision:
The onus of proof was only to satisfy the jury of the probability of that which he was called upon to establish.
The effect of the decision was as follows:
The decision in which the learned judge below was over-ruled because he had taken the view that the accused has to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, was that the accused still has to prove his own case. He has to prove that he is innocent, but the burden of proof is the same as that upon the plaintiff of a similar action, who has to prove his own case.
Where does that decision lead us? It leads us into the situation that if a man is charged under Clause 1 and if the facts


stated in the Clause are proved, the onus of proof then shifts to the defendant. If the defendant satisfies the court that he is just as likely to be innocent as guilty, the court still has to convict the accused, under the terms of the Bill.
There are two points I would like to raise on that matter. The first is that it is utterly repugnant to every sense of British fairplay and justice. In fact, it is bringing into our courts a provision which is associated in the minds of the public with the Continent and not with the traditions of this country. The second point is that I do not believe it will be an effective way of implementing the principles which the Government wish to implement. The courts of justice in this country will not stand for an Act of Parliament which reverses the whole tradition of British justice, and are unlikely to be prepared to implement this Measure loyally—as they ought, because it is a very necessary Measure. They will feel that this provision has been dragged in to oblige them to convict a man about whose guilt they have reasonable doubt. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to reconsider this matter, and to give us a conciliatory answer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree that this is a very important matter and raises a question of principle as important as any in the Bill. From a practical point of view, the difficulty is, as one of my hon. Friend's said on the Second Reading, that if somebody who is charged with an offence goes into the witness box and simply says, "I do not know how the petrol got there," there is no certainty and there is hardly a probability, that he will be acquitted. Yet it is perfectly possible to imagine the situation in which that was the simple truth and that the accused man was quite unaware how the petrol got into the inappropriate receptacle, and consequently was not able to offer any explanation or to establish the defence he should establish under the Clause.
All that the accused would be able to do would be to put up a story which might reasonably be true and which would be consistent with his innocence. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) pointed out, if a man is accused of receiving stolen property and he can do

as much as that, he is entitled to acquittal, yet the man found with the wrong-coloured petrol in a pump has to go a good way further. I shall be interested to hear the Attorney-General telling us whether the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) was right and that it is necessary for an accused to establish his defence as a reasonable defence. I thought that the Bill did not go as far as that.

Mr. Blackburn: I did not say that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT I think he will discover that he did. I think that he appreciates the necessity for meticulous accuracy on this point.

Mr. Blackburn: I said over and over again, and I cited a case to show it, that the burden of proof upon an accused person is the same as the burden of proof upon a plaintiff in a civil action.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The case quoted by the hon. Member is not consistent with his opening sentence. If the hon. Member looks at his opening sentence, and particularly at the rather charming rhetorical flourish with which he opened, I think he will see that I am right. I do not want to spend any more time on this point. Let me return to the question of the accused man who says: "I do not know how it happened."
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) challenged the Attorney-General on this point on Clause 2 of the Bill during the Second Reading Debate. Intervening in the middle of the Attorney-General's speech he said:
Suppose that a reputable person, in whose car petrol was found, merely said: 'I swear on oath that I do not know how that petrol came into my tank'—would it be open to the court to acquit him?
The Attorney-General said this:
It would largely depend on the view the court took as to his credibility.
He went on to say:
If, in the end, the court believed him, it would be for the court to say whether he had proved the defence left open to him under the provisions of the Bill. In the end, it really comes down to the question of whether the court believes, on his oath, the motorist who gives evidence and an account of how he came by his petrol."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1948; Vol. 450, C. 991.]


As I understand his answer, the Attorney-General was saying that the result would depend upon whether the court believed the accused.
That seems to me to be a wrong principle to apply. It would be perfectly possible, therefore, for a man of thoroughly unreliable character to be charged with, and to be innocent of, an offence and yet to be convicted. A man of high reputation, such as the patronage Secretary, would be entitled to acquittal, according to that principle, while a man with a less distinguished reputation for probity would be in some jeopardy. We are introducing a very dangerous principle into the trial of these offences if a verdict of "Innocent" or "Guilty" is to be given simply according to the type of personality of the accused. There is implicit in this doctrine, stated by the Attorney-General, just that danger. I ask the Committee to realise that this is a matter which ought to be taken into account. It seems to be taking us into very dangerous waters and into a state of affairs which, as the hon. Member for King's Norton rightly said, is inconsistent with the traditions of the criminal law. It is reminiscent of the standards of administration of criminal law in certain other countries.
5.0 p.m.
I hope that the Attorney-General will accept the Amendment. We are not trying to free persons from giving an explanation after they have been found with the wrong petrol. We are trying to put a somewhat lighter onus upon them. It is becoming more and more apparent that there is a possibility of the greatest miscarriage of justice, as the Clause is drafted. There is great force in what the hon. Member for King's Norton has said, that if one produces a Bill the phraseology and drafting of which is regarded by most sensible and reasonable people as unfair, it will be found that sensible and reasonable persons will do their best to mitigate its severity by not being anxious to carry it out to the full. That is the danger to which I feel this Bill is exposing the enforcement of provisions against the black market. If the Government insist on including a provision which as it stands is repugnant to most people who have standards of fairness in this matter not only will they inflict injustice, but they will make their Bill much less enforceable than it would otherwise be.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I have naturally listened to this Debate with great interest and with a good deal of sympathy for many of the views which have been expressed, but I cannot help feeling that a great many of the fears which seem to agitate the minds of hon. Members are really misconceived. I adhere to the view—and I have given this matter full consideration since the Second Reading Debate—that this Clause does not cast a burden upon the defendant to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt. What the defendant is required to do under this Clause, and hon. Members may think that this is not a heavy burden upon him, is to show that it is reasonably probable that he did not know that there was red petrol in his car, and that it is "reasonably probable" that he took all reasonable steps to avoid acquiring red petrol.
He does not have to satisfy the court that he did in fact take all reasonable steps to avoid acquiring red petrol; he does not have to satisfy the court beyond doubt that he did not know there was red petrol in his car. But if the court, after having heard him—and in any case any court is bound to have some regard to the credibility of the witness who appears before it—come to the conclusion not that they are satisfied beyond all doubt that what he is saying is true but that it is reasonably probable, he would be entitled to acquittal under the existing law. I had the case which my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) quoted very much in mind when I considered this Clause.
There is a good deal of confusion in the minds of some hon. Members as to the position in regard to onus of proof in those cases where guilty kowledge is an essential element or an ingredient in the criminal offence and those where it is not. In the case to which the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) referred, a case of receiving stolen goods, the whole offence was constituted by the receipt of stolen goods by persons who knew at the time that they received them that they were stolen. Guilty knowledge is an essential element in the offence, and if in such a case the defendant satisfies the court, not indeed that he did not know they were stolen, but that it is possible that he has put forward a reasonably probable story that he did not know, then, as in the case to which the hon. and learned Member referred, the defendant is


entitled to acquittal. That is the position under the law in regard to those cases where guilty knowledge is an essential ingredient.
There are a great many statutory offences in which guilty knowledge is not required. Not only recent statutes but statutes which have been passed over a considerable period of time have often created, to a greater or lesser degree, an absolute liability. That is particularly the case where the subject matter of the offence is something which can normally be within the knowledge and within the control of the person charged with committing the offence. In the case of receiving stolen goods it may sometimes be difficult—receivers say it is always difficult and they may sometimes be right—to tell whether the goods concerned have been stolen or not, because the fact of their theft does not impress itself on the shape or colour of the goods.
In the case of petrol it ought normally not to be difficult for a motor car owner who is not colour blind to tell whether the petrol which is being put into his tank is red or white, or to take reasonable precautions—he is not required to do any more if he is not himself in charge of his car at the time—that other people shall not put red petrol into his car when it is a car which is only entitled to use white petrol.
For those reasons we have felt it right to take the view, which was indeed taken, as my hon. Friend pointed out, by the Russell Vick Committee, that this type of offence ought to be made one of absolute liability in which knowledge on the part of the defendant was not an essential ingredient. Indeed, the Russell Vick Committee, as the hon. Member fairly pointed out, went rather further. They carefully considered the whole of this matter, heard evidence on it, consulted the motor associations on it, and considered the practical difficulties which would arise if prosecutions had to be conducted and this Bill had to be enforced on any different basis. They came to the conclusion that the offence should be made one of absolute liability, and further, that there should be no defence at all in the case of the garage owner or the car owner who was found with red petrol in his tank, except that in, the case of the car owner he might be able to raise a defence if he could show that the car had been taken out of his control and was being used at

the time without his knowledge, as, for instance, where it had been stolen or taken improperly for a joy ride or something of that kind.
After the matter had come to us from the Russell Vick Committee we gave it careful thought, and we recognised that there was great force in the view that the Committee had taken. The owner is normally in control of his motor car, and if we try to legislate for exceptional and sometimes fantastic cases, we shall make bad law. The owner normally being in control of his car he will in all normal circumstances be able to ensure that it only consumes the kind of petrol to which he is entitled. We recognised that there was great force in the view which the Committee had expressed. None the less, we thought it would be right to mitigate and relax the stringency of the rule which the Committee had suggested by enabling owners to raise the particular defences which are set out in the Clause.
I cannot help thinking that when courts, whether justices' courts or juries, come to consider offences and to consider the defences which may be raised by defendants who are brought before them under the statute, they will normally not have much difficulty in making up their minds. If they believe the defendant they will come to the conclusion that he has proved his defence, and that will be an end of the matter. But if at the end of the day they come to the conclusion that although they are not satisfied that the defendant has proved his defence he has raised a sufficient doubt in their minds as to lead them to think it is quite possible, quite probable, quite reasonable that the defence may be true, it is their duty to acquit.
If there is any doubt about it, I will read what was said about it by one who is, I suppose, one of our greatest criminal judges at the present time, Mr. Justice Travers Humphreys. It is true that anything I say here or anywhere else has no authority, but what he says is, of course, binding upon all other courts that are likely to have cognisance of these offences. He said, in the case to which the hon. and learned Member referred, but the judgment in which he did not cite, the case of Rex v. Carr-Braint:
The second ground relied on for the appellant is that the Judge misdirected the jury as to the extent of the burden of proof placed


on an accused person by the terms of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916. That Section provides, inter alia, that wherein any proceedings against a person for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, it is proved that any consideration has been given to a person in the employment of any Government Department by the agent of a person holding a contract from a Government Department, the consideration shall be deemed to have been given corruptly as such inducement or reward as is mentioned in the Act, unless the contrary is proved'.
He is dealing with one type of case under that Act, incidentally, a very old Act, in which money is paid to a Government official who has contractual relations with the person who pays that money—where it is to be deemed to have been paid corruptly unless the contrary is proved. To continue my quotation:
The judge directed the jury on this point as follows.…That is to say, the judge laid down the proposition that the onus of proving his innocence lay on the accused and that the burden of proof resting on him to negative corruption was as heavy as that resting in a normal case on the prosecution.…In our judgment"—
and this is the operative part of this decision—
in any case where, either by stature or at common law, some matter is presumed against an accused person 'unless the contrary is proved,' the jury should be directed that it is for them to decide whether the contrary is proved; that the burden of proof required is less than that required at the hands of the prosecution in proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt; and that the burden may be discharged by evidence satisfying the jury of the probability of that which the accused is called on to establish.
That was the same expression that I used in advising the Committee just now about the matter. Under the provisions of this Measure the accused will not be required to prove beyond doubt that he did not know there was petrol in the tank, that he had taken all reasonable precautions about it. He will have to satisfy the court, on the whole of his evidence, that it is reasonably probable that he did not know, and that he had taken proper precautions.
The effect of this Amendment would simply be to embody in the statute what is in effect a common law rule of statutory construction. If one were to do that one would at once cast doubts upon the proper construction of other Acts where the defendant was given this kind of defence but where the words contained in this

Amendment had not been inserted. I am afraid that I have not made myself very clear. Let me try again. It is often necessary for courts, in deciding what construction is to be put on any particular Act, to compare what is in one Act with another, and sometimes that is a useful thing to do. If one inserts in this Bill an express provision on the lines of the decision of the court in the case of Rex v. Carr-Braint the presumption will be that any further Acts where those words embodying that rule of construction are not inserted create a position in which the defendant is called upon to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt.
5.15 p.m.
Where particular words, such, as the words in this Bill are re-enacted, after a court has given a judicial construction as to what those words mean, it is a well known rule of construction that those words are re-enacted in the sense that the court has construed them. I think that the House can feel quite assured that these words to be found in both Sections 1 and 2 of this Bill do not impose any obligation upon the defendant to prove his innocence beyond doubt, but entitle a defendant to an acquittal if the court, having heard all the precautions he took and what the circumstances were in which the car had been recently used and so on, comes to the conclusion that it is reasonably possible and probable that he did not know, and that he had taken all possible precautions. In those circumstances I hope that hon. Members will not think it right to press this Amendment, which would have the effect of being rather an open encouragement to justices to take a lax view about the administration of this Bill, would add doubt to dubiety and would make it very difficult to say exactly what the effect of the Carr-Braint decision was on this statute, or any other statute where similar words were used.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Committee has heard with a good deal of disappointment of the attitude which the Attorney-General has chosen to adopt to this Amendment, and also with a certain amount of bewilderment, because the arguments put forward by him for rejecting it were, in the main, directed to showing that the object which it is desired should be effected, would be effected if the words which we


proposed to insert were inserted. He has given us a general view that a man who is charged with having the wrong petrol in his tank would be quite open to say that there is a reasonable probability that it was innocently in the tank. That is how the Bill would read if our Amendment were accepted. It is not how it reads without it.
Clause 1 itself says that if the wrong sort of petrol is in the pump a man shall be guilty of that offence. All that is necessary is for petrol to be found in the pump, and then the man is guilty of an offence. The Bill goes on to propose that the man shall have a defence, but the defence is to prove that the commercial petrol was put into the pump without his knowledge or connivance, that he did not know it was there, and so on. That is a very heavy burden of proof for a man to discharge. It is always notoriously difficult to prove a negative at any time. If the man did not know that the petrol was there it is very difficult for him to prove facts in support of the fact that he did not know it was there. The thing is absurd, and I hope that the Attorney-General will think on this again.
I am not at all impressed by the argument which he addressed to us that if we put these words into this Bill we shall cast doubt upon previous decisions in other cases. We are doing nothing of the kind. This Bill will merely cover this extraordinary set of new offences which we feel obliged to create. It will have no effect upon established decisions of law on other matters. What I could not make out in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was on which foot he stands. In the first place he proceeded to distinguish this type of offence from offences known to criminal law where guilty knowledge was an essential element. He seemed to support that point in his argument upon the basis that these heavy penalties in the Bill are to be inflicted whether, in fact, there is guilty knowledge or not. If that is part of the Government's intention I am sure that the Committee would reject it. One has no right to take away man's livelihood—as this might do—and send him to prison for two years, if he had no intention of doing anything wrong. There is no precedent for that in the law of England.
Then the Attorney-General rather shifted off that ground, and said that, in fact, it does not matter what are the words in the Clause so long as the man is able to show a reasonable case. If that be the case, that is the law with regard to those crimes where guilty knowledge is not an essential element. He mentioned the case of Abramovitch which deals, as I recollect it, with the law regarding the receiving of stolen goods. I think that the crime of receiving stolen goods has more resemblance to this particular sort of offence than any other in the criminal calendar. If a man corruptly put red petrol into his private car tank he is doing it for gain, having come by the red petrol nefariously, and he is on all fours with the common "fence" or receiver.
What does the law provide for the offence of receiving stolen goods? Unless the indictment alleges at the very start that the goods were received knowing them to have been stolen, that indictment is bad and the proceedings are rejected. Unless the judge, in summing up to the jury, brings out the essential fact of guilty knowledge a conviction can be quashed on appeal. In the case of Abramovitch, he was accused of being a receiver of stolen goods. He was caught with the goods in his possession. The question was, did he know they were stolen or not? He put forward a story of how the goods came to be on his premises and the chairman of quarter sessions who was summing up to the jury, put the question to the jury in this form, "You have heard the prosecution's view of how the goods came to be there, you have heard Abramovitch's view. What you have to decide is which view is true."
That is to say, he was putting it to the jury that Abramovitch had the onus of satisfying the jury that his story was true. When the case went to appeal it was quashed on that very ground, because it was not the duty of the jury to decide whether Abramovitch's story was true. If the jury believed Abramovitch's story, however far-fetched it might sound, had there been a reasonable prospect of it being true, then the prosecution had not discharged the onus of proving their own case absolutely, and the conviction was bad. That is the case of Abramovitch, which has covered this sort of case ever since. I suggest to the Committee that it is a very serious thing to depart from


a very well tried principle. Circumstantial evidence can look very black against an innocent man. It is for that reason that our criminal law requires the most stringent degree of proof that human reason can encompass, and that is a very wise thing.
We should remember that the "criminal" as we must call him under this Bill, who puts red petrol into the wrong tank will be very much in the minority. We may catch a few men by this stringent departure from the laws of evidence hitherto required, but it is far better that some guilty people should go free than that one innocent man should suffer because the proper degree of proof has not been exacted. Far from being comforted by what the Attorney-General has told us, I feel it would be very dangerous to allow this drastic—one might almost call it Draconian—code to go forth without seeing that in this Committee and this House we retain the onus of the prosecution proving the guilt of the charge.

Mr. Blackburn: I hope that there is some chance of the Attorney-General changing his mind even at this late stage. It has been admitted by him that, if the matter is left in a state of equilibrium, so that the court is not sure whether the man is guilty or innocent, if it is a fifty-fifty case, the man is to be convicted. As I have said before, the narrow issue is whether Parliament will pass an Act of Parliament which, by its terms, oblige a court to convict the man who, in its opinion, is just as likely to be innocent as guilty. The Attorney-General has not denied that this is the position now under the Bill and I appeal to him to reconsider the matter.

Major Legge-Bourke: I wish to touch upon three points which have not so far been mentioned in this Debate. The first one is the possibility of the colour having been removed from the petrol and the examination being based only upon the chemical in the petrol. It does seem that it is perfectly possible that somebody might have their tank filled up with petrol from which the colour had been removed, but from which the chemical had not been removed. It is extremely unlikely that a person to whose car that had

been done would realise it, supposing he took the trouble to look into the tank. It is important that the Attorney-General should realise that, if a certain time elapses between the commission of the offence and its detection, it may be extremely difficult for the offender to produce any evidence at all. In that case, to place on him the burden of proving his innocence seems grossly unfair.
The second point is that the Attorney-General has cited, as a sign of his leniency, the fact that in the report of the Russell Vick Committee, the offender was given no chance to defend himself at all, and that therefore this Clause should be accepted, because it is so much more lenient than the recommendation of the Russell Vick Committee. In my opinion the first thing to find out is whether there is any tyrannical aspect to this Clause. If both the Russell Vick Committee recommendations and this Clause happen to be tyrannical, it is no defence of the Clause to say that it is less tyrannical than the Committee's report. If it is tyrannical we should if possible try to avoid it. I detest the whole frame work of this Clause for the very reason that it places the burden of proof of innocence on the defendant, and that he, therefore, is guilty until he is proved innocent. If, in order to carry out what we want to do, we have to be tyrants about it, we might seriously consider whether it would not be better not to deal with it at all.
My third point is that a great many of the people who will be affected or may be affected, will be the owners of small cars and people to whom the "courts" represent something rather terrifying. There is such a thing as being incoherent in a court, and I believe that humbler people will tend to be incoherent. If we place upon them the burden of proof in this matter in the way in which this Clause outlines we may be doing an injustice to the humbler people to whom the word "court" implies something which puts them completely off their balance. Therefore, I hope that the learned Attorney-General, will look at this matter again, because in my opinion this Clause is pure tyranny and nothing else. I fully accept the argument that it is most undesirable that anyone should be allowed to get away with the crime of putting commercial


petrol into the tank of a private motorcar, but I cannot accept the idea of making a man guilty, and then making him responsible for proving his innocence.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I had not intended to intervene in this matter, but there is one point upon which I would like to have the view of the learned Attorney-General. I do not agree with the general remarks which he made. I am more inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison). The learned Attorney's argument was, as I understood it, based upon cases where only one thing had to be proved by the accused person. Here there are three separate things to be proved. The Clause provides that as a defence you have to prove that the red petrol was put into the pump without your consent, that you did not know it was there, and that you exercised all due diligence.
It may well be that you can prove that you did not know by swearing that you did not know how the red petrol got there, and be believed. But that discharges only that part of the onus. It does not touch the first part, which apparently, according to the draftsman, is something quite different from that knowledge. Therefore, if I go into the witness box and say "I do not know how that got there," I may discharge the onus on the second of the three parts with which I have to deal, and I am able to explain, perhaps, although that is not so easy, all the things I did and thereby discharge the onus on the third part of exercising all due diligence. But these two things do not touch the first part, because I have to prove that the petrol was put into the pump without my consent. I cannot prove the two things by simply swearing that I do not know how it got there. Therefore, it seems to me that the learned Attorney's argument, even if it were a better argument than I am inclined to think it is, does not fit this Clause.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reply to the points which have been raised. This is a very important matter. I think that has been agreed on both sides of the Committee. Its importance is in no way

minimised by the fact that the Attorney has apparently sought to resist the Amendment on the point that what it seeks to provide is already provided in this Measure. I find that argument not easy to follow. The Attorney seemed to be arguing that it was one and the same thing to prove as it was to say that you do not have to establish it beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, he indicated, as I understood his argument, that an accused person was entitled to be acquitted if he satisfied the court that what he said might probably be true.
That really is not what this Clause says. If it is the Government's intention that a man who does his best to satisfy the court and satisfies the court that his account of what happened might reasonably be true—if that is the Government's intention, and I think the Attorney expressed that as the Government's intention—there is nothing between us in our desire about what this Clause should provide. But there is a great deal of difference in the wording of the Clause. I do ask the Attorney to try to find a form of words which does not leave the meaning of this important proviso in any degree of doubt. My right hon. and learned Friends agree with me in the view I put forward. The Attorney has sought to put forward another view of the legal interpretation of this proviso. When you are creating an offence, the nature of the defence should not be left in doubt. In those circumstances, I do ask the Attorney to reconsider this matter to see if he can find words which will express what appears to be the common intention of both sides of the Committee with no shadow of doubt about the meaning of those words.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry that I cannot hold out very much hope of our introducing any further Amendment of this Clause. I will consider the matter again, certainly, and satisfy myself, as I have already satisfied myself; that the doctrine which was laid down in the case of Carr-Braint will apply to this Bill as it has applied, I should think, to probably a score of Acts which have been on the Statute Book for a very long time. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) gave us a long account of the law relating to receiving and I do not quarrel with it in any respect, but the case of Abramovitch


was one where the onus lay on the prosecution to prove guilty knowledge on the part of the defendant, and that case simply decided that if the defendant raised a story such as was raised which might be true then that onus was not discharged and the defendant was entitled to an acquittal.
I agree that there is a close moral analogy between receiving stolen goods and black marketing in petrol, and I am glad to hear that clear indication of the right hon. Gentleman's view as to the nature of black market offences, namely, that they are as blameworthy as the receiving of stolen goods. But, when one comes to the facts in the cases of receiving and of black marketing in petrol, the position is very different. I have already explained that stolen goods have no mark upon them—there is no advertisement or other indication—to lead one to the knowledge that they have been stolen. Commercial petrol is coloured red and a garage proprietor or car owner ought to know, unless he is colour blind, if he is acquiring red petrol in his garage tanks or in his car.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is one point there. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that commercial petrol is coloured red, but the colour may be taken out and only the chemical content remain. In such a case, then the man will not be able to tell which particular petrol it was

The Attorney-General: We are not here able to legislate for, if I may say so, such unlikely and fantastic cases. It will involve a great deal of trouble—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Mr. Manningham-Buller indicated dissent.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but I assure him that that is so and he does not yet know the method of colouring. He suggests that someone will take out the colouring matter leaving only the chemical content, and then put that petrol into the tank of a car into which it is not entitled to be put without the knowledge of the owner.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not suggest that; but I said that on occasions one would find the chemical content in the petrol was such that the red might

be so diluted that it would not be visible to anyone using the naked eye.

The Attorney-General: If that was so it would be a case where a defendant would be able to say, I should think, that he was in a difficulty which would be a defence in the courts. He could point to the fact that the dilution was so great that there was no colour. He would suggest, perhaps, that some red petrol had been left in the pump from which he drew his supply but such a case is not one in which anyone interpreting the law reasonably, and using commonsense, would prosecute at all. Hon. Members must assume that these regulations will be interpreted with some common sense and that prosecutions are not likely to be brought where dilution is so small that no trace of the colour content is left and that there was no good reason to suppose that the petrol was of a colour it should not have been.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to reply to my argument about the parallel between the use of "illegal" petrol and stolen goods, and he made a great point that this commercial petrol is coloured and is a different article. I put to him this argument. This gives a prosecution such an almost overwhelming case to prove that the man is wrong that he ought to be given the liberty to explain himself in the proper way.

The Attorney-General: A man has ample opportunity, if he has a proper case, of satisfying the court that that is so, and it is quite idle and fantastic for hon. Members opposite to talk of tyranny if a garage owner—and a garage owner should have, and would have, complete control over his garage—or a car owner is called upon to show that he did not know there was red petrol in his car or in his pumps, and that he took all reasonable precaution to prevent red petrol from being put into the car or the pumps.

Major Legge-Bourke: I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in column 924 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, on the Second Reading Debate, the Minister of Fuel and Power stated that it might be possible to remove the dye.

The Attorney-General: It might be possible, but it is not easy, and it is fantastic to suppose that, where legisla-


tion has been passed by this House such as is necessary in this matter, people would go to great trouble to do this sort of thing; that they will go to the trouble of removing the dye and then put the petrol into the cars of other people who have not taken precautions to prevent that kind of thing. In one out of a hundred thousand cases, it may be, somebody might remove the dye and then put the petrol into the tank of some other person; for example, the tank of a person it was wished should get into trouble. It would be a very grave offence, for which there would be a penalty, but in passing Bills we cannot provide for contingencies so improbable as that. If one had to deal with such contingencies, legislation would be virtually impossible. One has to assume that these Bills, when Acts, will be administered sensibly, and quite fantastic occurrences such as those suggested will not take place. All the defendant has to do if he is a garage proprietor is to show that he was present when his pumps were filled, or that, if he could not be present himself, he deputed somebody else to be present and arranged for the person in charge of the pumps to show which were the commercial pumps to the tanker man. That is all he has to do.
5.45 P.m.
If, having heard his evidence, having put questions to him, the court comes to the conclusion that what he is saying is probably true—not that it is certainly true, but probably true—that man is entitled to an acquittal. Similar conditions apply to the motorcar owner. If he comes to court and swears that he did not consent to the petrol being put in; that he did not know that it was put in; that he had taken all reasonable precautions; that he had looked when he went to the garage; that he had noticed that the pump up to which he had drawn was labelled "Private"; that he had got out and watched the process of the filling of his tank and that he had seen that at the time he last filled it he filled it with white petrol—if the court believes that story, or if the court thinks that that story is reasonably true, the man is entitled to an acquittal.
That is my view of the law. I am not asking the Committee to accept it from me for a minute. That is the view of the law which has been applied by the

courts of this country in case after case where other statutes have provided that certain defences may be proved, or must be proved, by the defendant. To talk about that being tyranny is really beside the point. We have had these Statutes, from the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1906 to the present day, where offences have been created but the defendant has been allowed to escape if he can prove some particular set of facts which are likely to be peculiarly within his own knowledge and difficult of proof one way or the other by the prosecution. In provisions of that kind, the courts have said that the defendant, relying upon that kind of defence, has only to satisfy the court that it is reasonably, probably, true that what he has said is correct, and if he does that he is entitled to an acquittal. I hope that the Committee will be satisfied that the courts will be able to apply that rule to the words of this Bill as they have applied them to exactly similar words in other Acts of Parliament without any possibility of injustice being done.

Mr. Gage: I am impelled to intervene because I am certain that the cases which the Attorney-General imagined to be so widely improbable are by no means improbable. In fact, I came across one during the war. Hon. Members will remember that precisely the same action as this was taken during the war. Army petrol was coloured red while civilian or pool petrol was white. In that part of the country where I was serving, it was discovered that large quantities of Army petrol was being "liberated" to the civilian population. In order to find those who were transgressing, the police adopted just the method to be adopted now. The civilian police stopped the people, took a sample from their tank, and when they found red army petrol they prosecuted for receiving stolen petrol. All went well. A number of people were prosecuted; but one day a clergyman was stopped and in his tank was found red petrol. He objected most indignantly and said that he had just got the petrol from a pool petrol pump. Therefore, the police went along and they tried the pool petrol pump and out came red petrol.
With that fine impartiality which characterised the police of that neighbour-


hood, they prosecuted the owner of the pump as well as the clergyman. Both pleaded not guilty and the cases against both of them were dismissed because they satisfied the court. This is the point. All they had to say was, "We did not know that it was Army petrol; we did not know that it was stolen." They were able to do that. The clergyman was able to say, perfectly, properly, "I did not look at the petrol which was being put in. It was just pushed into the tank. I went to the proper place to get it. I drove off, and I was stopped." The owner of the petrol pump said that he had had a delivery the day before. He did not see the men put in the petrol and he assumed that everything was perfectly all right. There was an inquiry, as of course there would be in the Army in a troublesome matter like that. The circumstances were traced back as far as possible, but it was never discovered how that petrol got into the pump. I have no doubt, after, hearing all about it, after hearing as much evidence as could be collected, that it was a genuine mistake. I have no doubt that by mistake Army petrol which was intended for the Army was discharged into the petrol pump. The petrol people said that it was possible that might have happened, because where the two types of petrol had been carried in a tanker sometimes the white petrol might be discoloured.
The point is that under this Bill it will not be enough for the clergyman—to use him as my example—to say "I did not know." He will have to go one step further. He will have to say that he exercised all such diligence to prevent it being put into the car, or the owner of the pump will have to say that he exercised all such diligence to prevent it being put into the pump. I agree with a great deal of what was said by the Attorney-General; I thought that it was sound sense; but I find myself in a difficulty about one part of his speech. How can a person who lends his car to another say, "I have taken all reasonable precautions," beyond saying to the person to whom he lends the car, "You must not put in red petrol"?

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I can help. I say frankly that we do not accept absence of knowledge as being a sufficient defence in itself. We do not want to en-

courage the practice of turning a blind eye to the type of petrol which one receives. We say that the motorist or the garage proprietor must take reasonable precautions to see that he gets the kind of petrol to which he is entitled. The question of what amounts to reasonable precautions in a particular case will be a matter for the jury or for the justices—people eminently qualified to decide what is reasonable in the circumstances of a certain case. In the case which the hon. Member put, I think that if I were a justice I might ask, "Did you make any inquiry, before you lent your car to the person who was using it at the time, whether he had coupons for a car of this kind? Did you inquire from him what his source of petrol would be? What right had he to get petrol for use in a private motor vehicle? Did you yourself provide him with coupons to enable him to get the appropriate kind of petrol?" If a court, after asking questions of that sort, came to the conclusion that probably—not certainly, but probably—the defendant had taken reasonable precautions to see that only the appropriate kind of petrol was used in the car, then that man would be entitled to be acquitted.

Mr. Gage: I agree with the Attorney-General, but his parallel between this case and the receiving cases falls to the ground. Questions of that kind could be put to a person charged with receiving stolen goods. That person has to show, "I did not know that those goods were stolen." This takes the matter one step further. One has to say not only that one did not know, but that one had taken all reasonable precautions to find out. That is an advance, a step forward. It is no use for the Attorney-General to argue that this is the same position as that which exists in receiving cases, because it puts a heavier burden on the defence. I hope that the Attorney-General will think again about this Amendment and accept it.

Mr. Henry Strauss: By some of his examples the Attorney-General has shown that in his view, if the defendant can show, in effect, that he is an honest man, that will be good enough. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman certain that his wording has provided for the case where the defendant has given his consent but that consent has been obtained by fraud? I am certain that the Attorney-General will


see the sort of point I have in mind. Suppose the colour has been removed from the commercial petrol and that petrol—that is, the wrong sort of petrol—has been put into the defendant's tank, but he has consented to his tank being loaded on that occasion with some liquid that was then put in, is the Attorney-General quite sure that he will not have given a consent within the meaning of this Subsection sufficient to justify a conviction?

The Attorney-General: I think not, because the consent that would justify a conviction here would be a consent that commercial petrol should be put into his car. One cannot give consent to something about which one does not know. If one's consent had been obtained by

fraud, it is not consent at all. I think that that is the correct answer to the question. The hon. and learned Member said that I had suggested that it would be enough to show that the defendant was an honest man. That is not quite enough. He must show that he is an honest man and a careful man. That is the difference between the receiving case and this case. If he appears to the court to be an honest man and he says that he has been a careful man, then probably the result would be an acquittal.

Question put, "That the word 'prove' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 87.

Division No. 139.
AYES
5.58 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Dumpleton, C. W.
Oldfield, W. H


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Edelman, M.
Palmer, A. M. F


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Attewell, H. C.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Pearson, A.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Ewart, R.
Peart, T. F.


Bacon, Miss A.
Fairhurst, F.
Perrins, W.


Balfour, A,
Farthing, W. J
Popplewell, E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Follick, M.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Barstow, P G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Barton, C.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Pritt, D. N.


Battley, J. R.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pursey, Cmdr H


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gilzean, A.
Reeves, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Beswick, F.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Rhodes, H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Granville, E. (Eye)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Binns, J.
Grey, C. F.
Robens, A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blyton, W. R.
Gunter, R. J.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Bowen, R.
Guy, W. H.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Royle, C.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Harrison, J.
Sharp, Granville


Bramall, E. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Haworth, J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hicks, G.
Simmons, C. J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Skeffington, A. M.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
House, G.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Byers, Frank
Hoy, J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Callaghan, James
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Snow, J. W.


Chamberlain, R. A
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Sparks, J. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Stamford, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Jeger,, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Stross, Dr. B.


Cobb, F. A.
Jenkins, R. H.
Stubbs, A. E


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Swingler, S.


Collindridge, F.
Kinley, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Symonds, A. L.


Crawley, A.
Levy, B. W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Crossman, R. H S
Lipson, D. L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Daines, P.
Longden, F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McAdam, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McLeavy, F.
Tiffany, S.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Mallalieu, E. L (Brigg)
Titterington, M. F.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Tolley, L.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Deer, G.
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mitchison, G. R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Diamond, J.
Monslow, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
Moyle, A.
Walkden, E.


Donovan, T.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)




Weitzman, D.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Zilliacus, K.


Wheatley, Rt Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)



White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Woodburn, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Wyatt, W
Mr. Joseph Henderson and




Mr. Hannan.




NOES


Amory, D, Heathcoat
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Hollis, M. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Howard, Hon. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Pickthorn, K.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bromley-Davenport, LI.-Col. W
Lambert, Hon. G.
Prescott, Stanley


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lancaster, Col, C. G.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Carson, E.
Lloyd, Setwyn (Wirral)
Robinson, Roland


Challen, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Ropner, Col. L.


Channon, H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Smithers, Sir W.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
MacLeod, J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Studholme, H. G.


De la Bère, R.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Sutclife, H.


Drewe, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Turton, R. H.


Gage, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Vane, W. M. F.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Mellor Sir J.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Harden, J. R. E.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Neven-Spence, Sir B



Head, Brig. A. H.
Odey, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Sir Arthur Young and




Brigadier Mackeson.


Question put, and agreed to.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It would I think be convenient to take the next two Amendments together.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was going to suggest a little more than that, Mr. Beaumont. I would suggest that the Amendments to page 2, line 3, leave out "such," and insert "reasonable"; line 4, leave out from "pump," to end of line 6; line 10, leave out "such" and insert "reasonable"; and line 11, leave out from "supply," to end of line 12, be taken together. These four Amendments raise the same point, and, in acting as we are, in the spirit of good will and cooperation, I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if all were dealt with together.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am quite happy to agree to that.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out "such," and to insert "reasonable."
The object of the four Amendments is the same. In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said so repeatedly in discussing the last Amendment, I think he will find it difficult to put forward a

case for the refusal of these Amendments. He has said several times that all that a person who is charged with having red petrol in his pump will have to show, apart from the fact that he did not know it was there and that it was not put in with his consent or connivance, is that he exercised reasonable care, and that he has to be both honest and careful. When one looks at Clause 1 and its provisos, one finds that the word "reasonable" is not there at all. What is, in fact, provided is something more than reasonable—that he has to exercise "all such diligence" to prevent the petrol being in the pump—
as he ought to have exercised having regard to all the circumstances.
When one comes to examine how petrol gets into a particular car, it is easy for a court to say, looking back on the circumstances, "Well, if you had done this or that, the petrol would not have got into the pump," and, if they could find some method by which the owner of the garage could have prevented that petrol getting into the pump, then they would not be entitled to find that he exercised "all such diligence" in preventing the petrol getting into the pump. Bearing in mind what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said so repeatedly—that


there should be reasonable care—I suggest that the meaning of this proviso will be made much clearer and much easier for magistrates to understand if the Amendment is accepted. The first proviso would then read—
and that he exercised all reasonable diligence to prevent the petrol being in the pump.
In the case of the second proviso, it would read—
and that he exercised all reasonable diligence to prevent such supply"—
and that is the proviso dealing with the case of supply from the pump into the car. I do not know that I need talk at any great length in moving this Amendment. I am sure he will appreciate that I could have put my arguments in support of the Amendment at considerably greater length, but, in view of the fact that it adopts the very phraseology which the Attorney-General used himself in the last discussion, I hope tie will accept it.

The Attorney-General: The Committee will find that I shall be only too ready to accept any Amendment which is reasonable and improves the Bill. I think this Amendment is one with that effect. I do not think it alters the Clause substantially, but it certainly makes the drafting better and simplifies the Clause. I am glad to accept it, and I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for moving it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: In line 4, leave out from "pump," to end of line 6.—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would it be appropriate, Mr. Beaumont, to take the second Amendment to line 10 with that to line 11? There is another Amendment which comes before these.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is necessary to take the other Amendments on the Order Paper before we come to that to line 10.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, after "connivance," to insert:
or that he genuinely believed that the vehicle was not a private motor vehicle.
This Amendment raises a different point, one which has already been slightly touched upon by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). The right hon.

and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, in the Second Reading Debate, revealed that we might have one type of vehicle sometimes entitled to white petrol and sometimes entitled to red petrol. We might have the same vehicle, having precisely the same appearance in the hands of one owner getting white petrol, and, in the hands of another, getting red petrol. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us—that the same type of vehicle might be drawing different kinds of petrol. Obviously, that may cause considerable difficulty to a garage proprietor, and, we might well have the case where a garage proprietor was misled or tricked into supplying red petrol into a vehicle which, in fact, was not entitled to have that red petrol.
All this Amendment seeks to do is to make it clear for the court—and, here again, the burden lies upon the accused garage proprietor—that, if the accused satisfies the court that he genuinely believed that the man driving this type of vehicle, many of which would get red petrol, was entitled to red petrol he would be entitled to be acquitted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier that it was his view of the law that consent obtained in these circumstances by fraud would not be operative. This Amendment is a way of drawing to the attention of magistrates throughout the country the fact that, if the man genuinely believed his consent was obtained by fraud, he would be entitled to be acquitted. We do, however, get this difficulty. Some courts may say, "We think you were tricked into it, if, in fact, you consented." There might be the trouble of a wrong conviction and the necessity of taking the matter higher. The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the situation again and to be a guide and a signpost to those who have to administer this rather complicated Measure when it becomes law.

6.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for this Amendment because it calls attention to an important point, about which we are anxious to avoid any of the difficulties or dangers which he envisages. As I am about to explain, I think we have probably succeeded in this way and I hope I can set his fears at rest. We propose by the regulation to define a private


motor vehicle in the same way as the definition in the Road Traffic Act, 1934. I think that in one of the Schedules to that Act the definition is given as:
vehicles constructed solely for the carriage of passengers and their effects … adapted to carrying not more than seven passengers exclusive of the driver.…
It is intended to bring into that definition the ordinary private motor car, which is obviously a private motor car from its appearance and construction; and to include also the motor bicycle, the taxicab—constructed as a private motor car but used possibly for commercial purposes—and the private hire car. Those are the vehicles which will be "private motor vehicles" for the purposes of this Bill.

Mr. Turton: The utility van—

The Attorney-General: The utility van or shooting brake and that kind of vehicle will not be a "private motor vehicle" for the purposes of the Bill. Consequently, offences will not be committed with these vehicles under this Measure. There may be other questions about the coupons used under the Control of Fuel Order, but no offence will be committed under this Bill if red petrol is acquired for these vehicles.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I would like elucidation on that point. Surely the Minister said—and I think it has been repeated by the Attorney-General—that the owner of a utility van would have to choose or opt whether he would be considered in the category of the private motor vehicle or the commercial vehicle. From what the Attorney-General has just said, I gather that he is taking away that option and that the utility vehicle will not be considered as a private vehicle for this purpose.

The Attorney-General: No. We were so impressed by the weighty arguments used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we gave further consideration to the matter. We decided the more appropriate and convenient course was to treat the utility van—the shooting brake type of vehicle—as not being a private motor vehicle for the purposes of the Bill, with the result that offences are not likely to be committed with such vehicles. It will remain an administrative matter, as it is now, what type of coupon it shall get, whether used for private, farming or any other purpose. These vehicles will be

taken out of this Bill and will be entitled to use red petrol if the appropriate coupons are issued.

Mr. Hudson: For private purposes?

The Attorney-General: Yes, also private. You cannot have red into white, but you can have white into red.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That explanation very largely relieves my fears but I would like to ask a further question. Vehicles are now being divided into categories by definitions from an earlier statute. I am thinking of the position of the boy who is working the petrol pump. Will there be any individual mark on the type of vehicle which comes within the category of the dual purpose vehicle to show him that he is safe in putting red petrol into that vehicle? Otherwise, people who are entitled to red petrol may have difficulty in finding a garage proprietor who is willing to take the risk of supplying him. It would be very much easier if we could be told that the ordinary garage attendant can tell whether a vehicle comes within the Schedule, or will be a vehicle outside the Schedule and entitled to red petrol. If this position is easily distinguishable by the petrol pump operator my fears will have been relieved and I shall be glad to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: We had not contemplated an identifying mark on vehicles but the point which has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman is one of substance. We want to avoid any difficulty or inconvenience, both to the garage proprietors or attendants and to the motorists. We will consider the matter afresh to see whether we can make the position even clearer than it is now. In general, the garage proprietor will know that if the vehicle is a private motor vehicle it is not entitled to red petrol.

Mr. Turton: Surely the new order announced by the Government makes nonsense of the whole Act? A very large number of surplus Army P.U's. have been fitted up and used as private motor cars. It is difficult to distinguish many of them from ordinary private vehicles. They will have the great advantage of running on red petrol, and garage proprietors will be told that if they put red petrol into them they are not committing offences; but if they put red petrol into a vehicle which is exactly similar in appearance they will be fined £500. The new


decision of the Government will make the Bill unworkable in local garages. Therefore, I ask that the words proposed in the Amendment, which are reasonable, should be inserted.
I can foresee another difficulty for the garage hand in not knowing whether he should put red or white petrol into a vehicle. I gather that all vehicles carrying trade plates are to be allowed to use red or white; if that is not so I hope the Minister will deny it. I am reading from the instructions he has sent out to all garages at the weekend. If that is the case—if, in fact, the motor trade have prevailed upon him to allow all trade vehicles to have red or white petrol—the position will be very difficult for the busy garage man: he sees an Austin 10 drawing up, for which white petrol is asked and given; the next one asks for red and the garage man may think it has trade plates; the next one comes up and requires red petrol and probably has another trade plate. Must the garage man be fined £500 for making that mistake on a busy afternoon? The Government are making the difficulties of garage employees unnecessarily great. I can understand their earlier distinction of white petrol for a private car and red petrol for a lorry or commercial vehicle; but they are now saying that some cars, which look exactly the same as private cars, are to have red petrol merely because they have trade plates. Many utility vans and shooting brakes are regarded and accepted as private vehicles—I should not say on pleasure bent, although we do see them going to football matches and to the races. To say that they are not private vehicles at all, but are commercial vehicles which will carry red petrol, is making the Act far too difficult for garage owners. I hope the Government will reconsider these decisions and will include a safeguard for the employees as is suggested by the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I have said that we will consider this matter further to see whether any other provision can be made to remove any possibility of doubt. In imposing a scheme of this nature, however, there must be some degree of care on the part of both the motorist and the garage proprietor to see that commercial petrol is not supplied to private cars. No very heavy burden is imposed on a garage hand to go round to the front of a vehicle,

for which he is handed red coupons and which appears to be a private motor car, to see if it has trade plates. If it has, he will be entitled to honour those coupons; if not, he will know it is a private vehicle which is not exempt from the provisions of the Bill.
If the garage hand supplies red petrol to the utility van or shooting brake, he cannot be convicted of an offence under this Bill. There is no question of his being fined £500 because no offence will have been committed. The vehicle is not a private one within the definition provided and, therefore, the supply to that vehicle of commercial petrol will not be an offence under this Measure. As I have undertaken to do so, I will look into the whole question.

Mr. Pickthorn: Why cannot we have the definition included in the Bill—it is already in a statute—and not rely upon ministerial assurances?

The Attorney-General: Precisely for the reasons we have been discussing. There may be difficult cases and we want an opportunity of discussing the whole matter with the motoring trade associations to get the regulations as right as we can. We want also to retain the power to vary the definitions if it turns out that there is the kind of loophole or difficulty envisaged by some hon. Members.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: No one from this side of the Committee has dissented from the proposition that a duty of exercising care shall be placed both upon the motorist and the garage proprietor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has appreciated the substance of our point and has said he will carefully consider the matter again. I am sure he does not wish to see a man convicted who genuinely endeavours to be both honest and careful. Relying upon his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out "such," and to insert "reasonable."

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Would I be in Order in raising a small point on these Amendments which is slightly different from the matters we have been discussing?

The Deputy-Chairman: They have been discussed already.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think it might be more convenient if we could discuss them now.

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be better to discuss the point on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part."

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: In line 11, leave out from "supply," to end of line 12.—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.30 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The second proviso of this Clause deals with a slightly different position from the first in that it is concerned with the taking of petrol from a pump and putting it into the tank of a car. Under the first proviso it has to be assumed that the proprietor of the garage himself would be directly responsible. That would be a large transaction in the ordinary way, involving the pouring of many gallons from a substantial vehicle into a substantial tank, while in the other case, normally speaking, it would be a mere garage hand—and I do not use the word in any disrespectful sense but as someone who has not got the same sense of responsibility as would the owner of the garage—who would be responsible for the operation.
The Clause is concerned only with the person who is actually carrying out the supplying of motor spirit, and I imagine, therefore, that the garage hand, no matter how flagrant his crime or however deliberately it is done, could not be made liable for any offence under this Clause. So there is the position where the garage hand will be free under this Clause to commit an offence which might land the owner of the garage into the commission of a serious offence attendant with serious penalties.
The second proviso provides that any person charged with the offence mentioned in paragraph (b) has to prove:
that the commercial petrol was supplied without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all diligence to prevent such supply as he ought to have exercised having regard to all the circumstances.

I should like to ask the Government what kind of diligence is to be required in the case of the proprietor of a garage employing a number of hands. Will it be sufficient if he merely tells his employees that they are to take care? That is probably as far as it would be reasonable to go in the ordinary way.
If that is the position I do not see how the Government are ever going to convict a garage proprietor at all, because all he need do unless actual connivance is proved against him—and the difficulty of that is clearly shown in the report on which this Bill is based—is to say, "I told my employees not to do this, and they have done it without my sanction." In this instance I seem to be arguing on the side of the Government, but where a Bill is reasonable there is generally a desire in all parts of the Committee to strengthen it. I am not satisfied that this amended Clause will make the position of the garage proprietor clear. Could we be told whether it would be sufficient merely for him to issue an instruction or whether it is the intention of the Government that he should show something more than that? If that is the intention it may seriously interfere with the conduct of garages throughout the country.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I was not present during the whole of the proceedings on this Bill, but I have been here a sufficient time to hear the Government make three pronouncements which will upset the distinction between white and red petrol and will lead to black market operations on a considerable scale, as a result of which the law will be brought into serious contempt. As we proceed with this Bill I become more and more convinced that the whole thing is nonsense and will never operate in the country. The only possible course for the Government would be to reverse their decisions on the whole of this petrol scheme and to restore some measure of free economy to the country.
What are the three statements? First, there was the announcement that they would make it possible to collect commercial coupons against white petrol in rural areas. That means that petrol pumps in those areas have got to be watched closely if that is not to lead to black market operations in rural areas. Next, the Government said that cars with trade plates would get red or white petrol


as their owners chose. That means, in effect, that such cars will be moving petrol pumps wherever they operate throughout the country with consequent possibilities of black market operations. Third, the Government are going to allow red petrol to be put into private utility vans. Garage hands who will supply that petrol are exonerated, and in the next Clause we will see what happens to a private user of a private utility van. Is he going to be penalised anyway, and, if so, what will be the effect of it on private vehicles which are borderline cases. He will as a right have red petrol in his tank, and that is another area for black market operations. This Bill is leading us into a deplorable situation, and as we proceed I hope we on this side of the Committee will watch is closely Clause by Clause.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I want to ask two questions, or possibly they might be taken as one question. Many garages are limited companies. The limited company under this Bill has an unlimited liability so far as any fine for any offence is concerned. Limited companies are both big and small. I should like to know whether these provisos, particularly the first one, afford any defence to the limited company which is a garage proprietor. How does a limited company prove that petrol is put into a pump without its consent or connivance? How does a limited company prove that it does not know that the petrol was there? If it be the case, as I suspect it is, that this proviso, in fact, affords no defence at all to any garage proprietor who is a limited company, it should be clearly stated. If, on the other hand, there is some way by which the company can prove a negative—that a pump in a particular garage belonging to it contained red petrol of which it did not know—some indication ought to be given to the Committee what that proof is.

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I might deal first with the last point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). Judging from his smile, he does not put his point forward as a very serious one. It is a point that has arisen under many Acts which have been on the statute book for a score of years and more and it has operated without due difficulty. I am reminded that the Coal Nationalisation Act is one of them. Many statutes im-

pose criminal liabilities on companies where knowledge is an essential ingredient of the offence. In such cases the managing director or the manager may be considered the alter ego of the company. Where the garage is owned by a company the garage manager or managing director will have to show that he has taken reasonable precautions, provided satisfactory supervision and so on. Having indicated to the court that he had taken those steps, the court will then have to decide whether the offence was committed with his consent or not. I have no doubt that the provisions under Clause 2 will apply equally to corporations and private individuals.
I was also asked whether the provisions would apply to a garage proprietor whether a corporation or a private person, and what would he have to do in order to satisfy the court that he had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the statute had been complied with. That, of course, is essentially a matter for the courts to deal with and decide on the circumstances of each case. It is not a matter on which it would be possible or proper for me to attempt now to lay down any rules. The court would inquire what instructions had been given or what supervision was provided in order to make sure that the instructions were carried out. That is precisely the type of question that arises in innumerable statutes like the Coal Nationalisation Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Licensing Acts and so on, where masters are responsible for the acts committed by their servants. One must leave it to the courts to decide what was reasonable in the circumstances of each particular case.
I was asked what would be the position of a garage hand. A garage hand would, of course, he liable under the provisions of Clause 3 (b) to which we have still to come. He might also be liable in aiding and abetting the commission of an offence by a garage owner under Clause 1, but under one Clause or the other the garage hand, who supplied red petrol to a private vehicle, would certainly be liable.
Finally, there was the point raised by the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). He appears to take the view that because there still remain some possible loopholes, which we have not been able to stop up, for the commission of black market


offences, therefore, no steps should be taken at all to put down and suppress the black market, which undoubtedly exists at the present time. That is not the view taken on this side of the Committee, and I venture to think that it is not the view taken generally on the other side of the Committee. I hope it will be common ground that it is necessary to put down by all possible means the existing black market, and if there still remain a few loopholes for evilly disposed persons to commit these offences, that is indeed to be regretted, but it is no reason why the door should be left wide open for the commission of offences in the manner hitherto possible.

Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Offences by private motorists.)

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move in page 2, line 14, after first "vehicle," to insert "to his knowledge."

The Deputy-Chairman: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment is taken together with the two which follow it:
In page 2, line 16, at end, insert:
Provided that the presence of commercial petrol in the tank of a private vehicle shall be prima facie evidence that the owner thereof and the person (if he is a different person) in charge thereof at the time knew of its presence in the tank.
In page 2, leave out lines 17 to 29.

Mr. Blackburn: I agree The point raised by this Amendment and those which follow it is the point already raised by Clause 1. So far as the Clause stands, in the absence of this Amendment, we have reached agreement on what the position is. Again I want to say that the Attorney-General has changed his mind completely since last Monday. Last Monday I interrupted him, and I will quote at full length what I said then:
What about the case where there is a reasonable doubt? If a reasonable doubt is raised by the accused, then, in accordance with every tradition of British law, he is entitled to be acquitted. Under Clause 2, if there is a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused, the man is still convicted.
To that the Attorney-General replied:
I do not take that view of the Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1948; Vol. 450, c. 992.]

Here today he has admitted that that is so. Where the onus of proof is cast upon the accused, it is now shown that the same onus is cast as is cast upon a plaintiff or a defendant in a civil case.
The effect of this decision is that the onus is cast upon the accused to prove that it is most probable that he is innocent and, not only that, but in the terms of this Subsection he has to prove three things. Perhaps for the word "prove" I will substitute "establish that it is most probable." He must establish:
(a) that the petrol was put into the tank without his consent or connivance:
(b) that he did not afterwards discover that the petrol was commercial petrol or had no reasonably convenient opportunity after such discovery of removing the petrol from the tank; and
(c) that he did not neglect to take any step which in the circumstances he might reasonably have been expected to take to prevent the petrol being in the tank.
He has to prove all three things, but (c) is the most staggering of all. I am bound to say that I find it very difficult to understand what this could really mean. Surely it should be a principle that legislation should be drafted in such terms that the man in the street would be left beyond doubt as to its meaning. There is a difference from Clause 1 in this case. Clause 2 applies to absolutely every motorist in the country. We might all ourselves be in a difficult position. It might affect exalted persons like Ministers on the Government Front Bench. We will be fighting a General Election in 1950, and how easy it would be for some ill-disposed individual on the other side to pay somebody to put some red petrol into the tank of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary! In those circumstances the Home Secretary has to prove (a), (b) and (c), and under (c) he has to prove
that he did not neglect to take any step which in the circumstances he might reasonably have been expected to take to prevent the petrol being in the tank.
What does that mean? Does it mean one has to lock up the tank?
Take another case. A Minister of the Crown, say, leaves his key in the car, somebody takes the car, drives off and puts in red petrol. There is a prima facie case, at any rate against the owner of the car, under Clause 2, and the fact that he left his key in the car would, in my view, be sufficient to knock out any defence under Subsection (c), because he could not claim


that he did not neglect to take any step which in the circumstances he might reasonably have been expected to take to prevent the petrol being in the tank.
The more serious point about this matter is that there are automatic penalties. I would agree that this would not be so serious if all these cases could be dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act, or treated as relatively trivial matters. Take another illustration—a more practical one. I have many people in my constituency whose entire livelihood depends on their having licences, individuals who go around delivering all kinds of goods in working-class areas, and who are very useful indeed. Such an individual may make an error of some kind, like the one I have indicated of leaving his key in the car, and so, maybe, he would be picked up and convicted. This is a most serious matter, because his whole livelihood would go.
We then come to the second point which is much more serious—it has not been denied by the Attorney-General and manifestly cannot be denied by him—that if a judge or jury, considering the offences under Clause 2 and considering what has been said by the accused, come to the conclusion that the man might just as well be innocent as guilty—having no views on which way the probability falls, this being a 50–50 case—they are bound under this Section, as it now stands, to convict the man. I suggest that the Attorney-General should reconsider this matter, because it is utterly contrary to every principle of British law that anybody should be convicted, particularly on any serious charge, unless his guilt is established in the mind of the court beyond reasonable doubt.
The point was made by the AttorneyGeneral—and I studied his remarks very carefully—that in this particular kind of case only the accused knows where he obtained the petrol and, therefore, a burden of some kind should be put on the accused. In this Amendment that point has been entirely accepted for it says:
Provided that the presence of commercial petrol in the tank of a private vehicle shall be prima facie evidence that the owner thereof and the person (if he is a different person) in charge thereof at the time knew of its presence in the tank.
What would the effect of that he? According to criminal law:

A prima facie case is one containing evidence which in the absence of explanation, would justify conviction.
Surely that is right. Presence of the red petrol, in the absence of an explanation, would justify a conviction—but not if a satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. The fact that red petrol is found in the car is prima facie evidence, under my Amendment both against the owner and the person in charge. They give their explanation and then it is entirely for the court to make up their own minds whether or not they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, in the circumstances, that the accused are guilty.
I cannot see what possible objection there can be to the acceptance of my Amendment. It provides the same situation as the Attorney-General advocated last Monday in the House, and I earnestly ask him to consider the matter most carefully, because this is a matter on which public opinion is forming itself. I have not the slightest doubt that if one took a plebiscite upon this narrow issue, 90 per cent. of the people in this country would vote without any question at all in favour of retaining the principle that the benefit of the doubt must always go to the accused. I was, in fact, asked a question upon this at a well-attended public meeting, and the opinion of that meeting appeared to be absolutely unanimous—and it was a meeting which, as usual in my constituency, contained a predominance of people supporting the Labour Government. I would beg the Attorney-General to reconsider this and see whether he cannot give way.

The Attorney-General: The object behind this Amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) indicated, has been fully discussed by the Committee in connection with previous Amendments on Clause 1. I indicated then, and I indicate again now, that I do not take the view that the garage owner or car owner have to be convicted unless they prove affirmatively and beyond doubt that the defence open to them under the Clause is proved to have been established. That is not the position under this Bill, but I agree with my hon. Friend that if the position is that, at the end of the day, the case is left evenly balanced and the court is so undecided that it is unable to make up its mind whether the defence is the more


probable or whether the prosecution's case is the more probable, the onus being on the defence to establish the defences which are provided for, the court ought to convict.
That is quite true, but courts do not normally allow themselves to be left in the position where the balance is even in that way. Courts either come to a conclusion that the defendant is honest or that he is not honest. If they come to the conclusion that, on the whole, he appears to be a truthful man, they will conclude that his story is probably true. If they come to the conclusion that he is not a truthful man, they will come to the conclusion that his story is probably not true. In the latter case they will convict and in the former case they will acquit. It is not usual that courts are so weak and indecisive that they are unable to make up their minds as to whether or not the case is left in a complete balance of equilibrium. Under this Bill, if that is the position, the prosecution is established, because it is the definite intention under the Bill to put the onus of showing that due care has been taken upon the motorist, who alone can tell what care has been taken and who alone has the power to control the use of his motor vehicle and see that the proper kind of petrol is put into it.
This Amendment seeks to substitute the defence of no knowledge for the defence of reasonable care, and it is not acceptable to the Government for that reason. The practice of turning a blind eye has been very well known in practice—and it is sometimes a very useful practice—since the day of Lord Nelson, if not earlier, but this Bill is not framed so as to encourage reckless indifference on the part of motorists or garage proprietors, or to relieve motorists or garage proprietors from the very definite obligation of taking care that commercial petrol is not put into the tank of private motor vehicles. On the contrary, I must tell the Committee quite frankly, the intention and object of this Bill, in accordance with the recommendations of the Russell Vick Committee is to impose, first, on the garage proprietor, the garage hand and the motorist an obligation to take all reasonable care and secondly, if that care turns out in the result to have been unsuccessful in avoiding the acquisition of

commercial petrol, to satisfy the court that all reasonable care was, in fact, taken.
That is the burden which is placed on the motorist and for that reason we are unable to accept the Amendment. I would only add, as one indication of the difficulty in which the hon. Member would place himself if this Amendment were accepted, that it might leave no defence at all to the motorist who, after discovering red petrol was in his tank—perhaps because he had been cleaning his carburettor or because the police had stopped him and pointed it out—continued to drive on his way. Under the Clause as drafted the motorist in that position is left with a defence, provided he has the petrol removed at some reasonably convenient opportunity.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am sorry we have had such a dusty answer from the Attorney-General on this matter. I rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn). One thing at least has emerged from the Attorney-General's speech; it has qualified somewhat the obscurity of his contribution to our previous discussion on Clause 1. It is now clear to me that the wording of this Bill is such that if the man does not prove affirmatively the things that he is being called upon to do, he must be convicted.

The Attorney-General: I must beg the right hon. Gentleman to believe that I said nothing of the kind. That is directly contrary to my view and to the view of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case I quoted. He does not have to prove that affirmatively at all; all he has to show to the satisfaction of the court is that it is reasonably probable that he did those things. That is something quite different from proof, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I must admit that it is a long time since I practised at the law, but certain principles in those days were so grounded into my mind that I have never forgotten them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, when we were discussing this matter on a previous occasion, the statute which he claimed to be analogous to this Bill—the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916—where similar provisions exist. If a man gives a sum of


money to a public official—I am referring to Section 2 of the Act of 1916—it is to be assumed that the gift is to be a corrupt one unless the man can prove to the contrary. My recollection of that statute, which I have just confirmed in the Library, in the cases of Rex v. Jenkins and Rex v. Evan Jones, in 1923, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, is that it was laid down that it was proper to direct the jury that if they have any doubt as to the story told by the defendant they ought to convict. In this Bill, if we allow it to go through without the Amendment—

The Attorney-General: What was the date?

Mr. Morrison: It was 1923.

The Attorney-General: I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the particular case of Rex v. Carr-Braint which is 1943, and the latest authority on the matter.

Mr. Morrison: I have not had time to look at that case, but I am perfectly certain that what I have stated was the law in 1923, and the interpretation given by the Court of Criminal Appeal to the statute which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has cited in support of his argument on the previous occasion.
Whatever were the reasons for impelling our predecessors in the Legislature to make that provision with regard to the offence of corruption, that is a very different matter from what we are now discussing. Large and considerable gifts of money do not find their way into the pockets of public officials by accident, except in some extraordinary and fantastic case of mistaken identity or something of that sort. If a man wants something from the Government and gives a large sum of money to someone who has the power to help him, there is a reasonable presumption in every ordinary man's mind that the gift is corrupt. Petrol may find its way into a tank by mistake, which cannot happen oo money finding its way into the pockets of a public official. We are considering here a different contract.
I say that the type of law that ought to be applied to it is the set of rules that has been developed with regard to the crime of receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen, in which case, as I have said before, the defendant has to prove an alternative to the prosecution,

but the jury, if the defendant's case is reasonable and he offers a reasonable explanation should acquit. That should be the law in this case, which, I say, is far more on all fours with receiving stolen property than it is with the crime of corruption, which is a very isolated affair. The reason why we should distinguish this from corruption is, I repeat, the great possibility of mistake.
No one sees petrol going into his motor car. If anyone goes to a petrol pump, asks for three gallons of petrol and presents the coupons, all he knows is that there is a machine behind him, there is a sound of rushing liquid into the back of his car, the cap is put on the petrol tank, a man comes to the window and asks for the money, and the person in the car gives it to him. That is all he knows about it. It may be that red petrol has been put in the car. The matter is made a little more emphatic by the requirements of paragraph (c):
that he did not neglect"—
this is what he has to prove—
to take any step which in the circumstances he might reasonably have been expected to take to prevent the petrol being in the tank.
Imagine what really happens. A man is motoring along. He wants some petrol and stops at a pump. He gets the petrol in the way that I have described, not witnessing the operation, and the fluid never having been in sight of his eyes, and he is then found with red petrol. It may be weeks later, or even months in the case of a jury trial, before he is up for trial.
In the case of magistrates, I can well imagine some very wise magistrate—wise after the event—saying what the man ought to have done to make sure that the petrol did not get into his car. It is notoriously easy to jump back, and so difficult to put one's self in the shoes of that man in the actual circumstances of the matter at the time. At some court sitting, at a time and place remote from the actual occurrence, and knowing very little about the man's circumstances, it might be said, "Oh, yes, you ought to have pulled the hosepipe out when the petrol was going in to see whether it was red or not." Is that a reasonable thing to ask? Some people may think that it is. Or they may say that cars ought to be provided with some arrangement by which the drivers can see the petrol going through the dashboard or something of


that sort. I think that it would be impossible for any court adequately to make up its mind. I say that, having regard to the fact that these cases may go to juries, and that it will be the duty of judges to direct juries as to how they should act, I do not think that it is justice that the appeal judges should direct juries to the effect that unless they are satisfied beyond doubt that the defendant has established his version of the affair, it is their duty to convict.

The Attorney-General: I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the Committee about the legal position on this matter, and I hope that nothing that I shall say can be taken as suggesting that I took a contrary view. But one of the disadvantages, and there are many counter-balancing advantages, of being absent from the practice of the law for a considerable number of years is that perhaps one fails to keep touch with new cases as they come to be decided in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The right hon. Gentleman would not, I think, venture for one moment to go before a court of justice and quote a case apparently decided in 1923 without taking the elementary precaution of at least looking at the cases already quoted by his opponent and finding out whether his own case had been commented upon in subsequent proceedings. That is the most elementary action that the lawyer who seeks to express a view about the law permits himself to take.
If I may permit myself to say a word on the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case to which I referred in the course of discussion on Clause 1—the case of Rex v. Carr-Braint—it refers to the position which the right hon. Gentleman sought to draw to the attention of the Committee, and puts this matter beyond any possibility of doubt. It makes it perfectly clear that the direction which the right hon. Gentleman suggested was the one which a judge would have to give in a case of this kind is a direction which if given would result in the case being upset in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The court in the case of Rex v. Carr-Braint made it clear that in any case, not only cases under the Corruption Act, where either by statute or by common law some matter is presumed against an accused person unless the contrary is

proved, the jury should be directed that it is for them to decide whether the contrary is proved or not, that the burden of proof required is less than that at the hands of the prosecution in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the burden may be discharged by the evidence satisfying the jury of the probability of that which the accused is called upon to establish. That is a very similar rule, as the right hon. Gentleman will agree, to that laid down in the Abramovitch case. In this Bill, in common with many other statutes from the Prevention of Corruption Act onwards, the onus is on the defendant, but he discharges that onus if he satisfies the jury that his account may probably be true.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I still feel doubts in my mind from the excerpts which the right hon. Gentleman has read whether it goes as far as we want. The scales are still left weighted against the defendant in a way that should not be permitted in the case of petrol offences. I could conceive in a case of corruption that the natural circumstances of the case did import such strong evidence of motive that that was allowed, but in a matter where there are such chances of mistakes, as in regard to petrol, it should not be the principle.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: How does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the prosecution in a case of this kind could discharge their onus?

Mr. Morrison: That is perfectly easy. If a man is found with red petrol in the tank of his car, as a private motorist, that in itself is a highly suspicious circumstance. It starts off with at least the first element of the case at the disposal of the prosecution. That is the thing the man must get himself out of. It is an established prima facie case. He has to give his case against that, but the burden of proving his innocence should not be that of proving it beyond all peradventure in the case where the chances of complete ignorance are so common. If he knows nothing it is very hard to prove anything.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The point was how the prosecution was going to be able to prove in most cases this question of consent or connivance. How is it practicable for the prosecution to prove it "beyond all reasonable doubt"?

Mr. Morrison: The prosecution have not got to prove it; it is for the man to do it.

Mr. Gammans: I do not know whether the Attorney-General has satisfied the Committee. He may have satisfied the lawyers but not the ordinary man who probably regards this as about the most pernicious piece of totalitarian legislation that this House has ever had before it. If the Bill goes through in this form no one is safe. May I instance my own case? I keep my car in a public garage with about 50 other cars. If anyone at the time of a General Election—or for that matter between elections—held a grudge against me, he has only to pop in half a gallon of red petrol, and I am for it. I am for it in a special sense for, like many other hon. Members, I have a business connection and would have access to red petrol. All I can do is to try and prove that I had no reasonable opportunity for removing the petrol after discovering it or did not neglect to take any steps. Does that mean every morning in my life I have to put my head into the petrol tank of my car? What exactly will I have to do in order to prove my innocence? I do not know what the Committee thinks, but I think it is an appalling state of affairs, and I sincerely hope the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Blackburn: I would like to say first that I accept the point the Attorney-General made about the individual who is reckless to the extent that he does not care whether the petrol is red or white. That point did occur to me when drafting my Amendments and if it were the point dividing us now I would accept his view. But we are not discussing now the onus of proof. I hope the Committee is clear about that. That is no longer the issue. I have conceded that the onus of proof in these Amendments is cast on the accused in the proviso that the possession of red petrol creates a prima facie case not only against the person in charge of the motorcar at the time but the owner also. I honestly do not think that I ought to have had it in but I did it in order to conciliate—I might even say—appease the Attorney-General. It has now been admitted that under Section 2 as now drafted the accused is not entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. He has to prove his innocence in the sense of establishing that it is most probable that

he is innocent. It is not even enough for him to show that it is just as likely that he is innocent as guilty if the defendant raises a reasonable doubt but cannot show that it is a preponderance of probability then he is convicted. He has to establish a preponderance of probability of his innocence, otherwise he is going to be convicted.
I try to be moderate in my language but really this is a most staggering proposition to be advanced seriously in the Committee of this ancient House of Commons. I dislike the use of the word reactionary. Because so often its use bears the hallmark of the crypto-Communist or crypto-Fascist, but this is a most reactionary Clause. Our law in fact started with a principle of absolute liability. Hundreds of years ago there was absolute liability. If there had been petrol then and one had found red petrol in the tank one would have been automatically guilty. Then if a man hit another accidentally with an axe he was guilty. Now once again we are back in the old primitive community. Now the onus is on the defendant and he has to establish that it is most probable that he is innocent. I cannot understand why this view is still maintained. We have heard a good deal about the century of the common man. It is a time when over an increasing number of offences he has to satisfy a court that most probably he is innocent while in the past he had only to satisfy a court that there was a reasonable doubt.
Last night I took down from my shelves a verbatim account of the Kylsant trial and read what the Lord Chancellor had to say in that trial. I found that one of the very last remarks he made was to the effect that the overwhelming consideration with the prosecution, as with the defence and with the court, still remains that you must not convict the accused unless you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty, however much you may disapprove of his conduct. Are we to abandon this protection which has been in our law for year after year? I asked the Attorney-General this question last Monday. It is in HANSARD and that is the only sanction which a humble back bencher now possesses. The facts are there to be read, if anyone cares to do so; at a time when on so many matters there is a twilight of freedom. It was


admitted by the Attorney-General that all he wanted was to be satisfied that an accused person could not get away with it by giving any sort of explanation. He has now had every conceivable concession made to him and has not given way. I believe that I should go on obstinately fighting the lost battle of virtue, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think we have got some little way forward in this discussion as a result of the last speech made by the Attorney-General, because we have now got him to admit that he is inflicting savage penalties because he disapproves of the actions of the persons concerned. He is altering the onus of proof because he disapproves in a particular way of the action of a particular person in regard to petrol. There is very little difference between that attitude and the attitude taken up by the Nazis when they set up people's courts. They set up these courts because they disapproved of the actions of the people brought before them, and later in the regime it was assumed that the person brought before the court was guilty, and it was up to him to prove his innocence. It is exactly the same principle as that contained in this Clause. Every word the Attorney-General has said has justified up to the hilt the accusations we made on Second Reading, and we shall certainly vote in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. H. Strauss: I apologise to the Attorney-General for not having been here at all stages of this discussion, but I think that the point I am raising has not been dealt with by him or by anyone else. I can understand the state of the law which would result if these carefully drawn Amendments were accepted. I wish the Attorney-General to explain to me what are the intentions of the Government, if they insist on the words which they now have. In the proviso the person charged has to prove three things cumulatively. I think that I understand paragraphs (a) and (c), but I hope, as the Attorney-General has alluded to paragraph (b) as though it were of some advantage to the defendant, that he will explain what is its intention. One of the things the defendant has to prove under (b) is

that he did not afterwards discover that the petrol was commercial petrol—
and then the strange words—
or had no reasonably convenient opportunity after such discovery of removing the petrol from the tank;
Does that mean that all methods of removing petrol from the tank are legitimate, or is there some particular thing that the person should do with the petrol? Should he choose a moment to pour it out when no one is looking? There is no statement in the Bill saying what an innocent man should do if he discovers the wrong petrol in his tank. I am sure that the Attorney-General had something in his mind as to what the right thing is for the person to do in such circumstances, because he must have had something in his mind when he drafted paragraph (b). At first sight, it would appear that if a man found a convenient opportunity and got rid of the petrol, he would be acting most suspiciously and giving an indication that he was not an honest man.

The Attorney-General: That would again be a matter for the court to decide when such a case came before them. Paragraph (b) is intended to provide for the case of a motorist who subsequently discovers that his tank, without his knowledge, had been filled up with red petrol. He might discover that in cleaning out the carburettor, or because he has been stopped by the police and has had it pointed out to him. He may find himself in the middle of Bodmin Moors, or in the Highlands of Scotland, scores of miles from the nearest garage with no spare white petrol. Is he to leave his car abandoned in the moors, or in the wilds of Scotland, and walk home? We think it is reasonable that he should be allowed to drive his car in spite of the fact that there is red petrol in it, and that he should remove the petrol when he gets to a garage or when, as the courts may decide, he gets a "reasonably convenient opportunity." We should all rejoice, if he had an opportunity to exhaust all the petrol in his tank.

Mr. H. Strauss: What is he to do with the petrol when he has removed it?

The Attorney-General: The Bill does not impose any obligation on the motorist in regard to what he should do with the red petrol after it has been removed from his car, but if the hon. and learned Member would like any private advice on the


matter I should be glad to discuss it with him. In the circumstances, I think it unnecessary to explore the matter any further as the Bill does not provide for that matter.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is it to be a sufficient defence for a person who is stopped by the police and found to have red petrol in his tank to say: "I am sorry, but I was trying to find a reasonable opportunity to get rid of the petrol"? Is it sufficient defence for him to say that there was a garage five or ten miles further on he was hoping to reach in order to get rid of the petrol, but that he was prevented from doing it because he was stopped?

The Attorney-General: Certainly, if the court believed the story. If the court accepted the story as being probably true, although not necessarily true, it would provide an adequate defence. I can relieve any anxieties which may exist on that. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) made an eloquent but almost entirely irrelevant speech, dealing with the case where guilty knowledge is an essential ingredient of the offence. I have endeavoured to point out that that is not the case under this Bill. In this case, as in many similar cases, the prosecution cannot hope to prove or disprove whether a motorist has taken reasonable care in a particular case to avoid commission of an offence in circumstances envisaged in this Bill.
7.30 p.m.
For that reason, an entirely independent committee, presided over by a distinguished lawyer to whose political affiliations my hon. Friend has referred, a man with great criminal experience, recommended that, consistently with our legal practice for more than half a century, this conduct should be made an offence in which guilty knowledge was not an essential ingredient to be proved by the prosecution. It has been common practice for a very long time indeed in cases where particular matters which may be raised by the defence are peculiarly within the knowledge and within the control of the defendant, to put upon the defendant the onus of proving his case. If that is really totalitarian, as some hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have suggested, all I can say is that it is a form of totalitarianism of

which hon. Members opposite have been far more often guilty than have Members on this side. In statute after statute in the last half century you can see provisions of that kind.

Mr. Blackburn: I am not at all disagreeing with my right hon. and learned Friend in his attack upon the party opposite. I merely wish to put it to him that there is not one single instance in the whole of the statutes in which the benefit of a reasonable doubt is not given to the accused and in which an automatic penalty results upon conviction.

The Attorney-General: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are very few cases in which there is an automatic penalty. If he is coupling the two things together, I should think he is quite possibly right. My researches would not enable me to say so with certainty, but it is quite possibly true. That it has been common practice for a very long time, in scores of statutes, to throw the onus on the defendant in regard to matters which are peculiarly within his knowledge and control, admits of no possibility of doubt. In this case, as in those cases, the defendant does not have to establish his innocence, as my hon. Friend repeatedly sought to persuade the Committee. On the contrary; all that he has to do in order to be entitled to an acquittal at the hands of a court is to persuade the court that in regard to those matters which are peculiarly within his knowledge and control and which in their very nature cannot be within the knowledge or under the control of the prosecution, his account of the matter is probably likely to be true.
I pass to another point. What steps the defendant ought reasonably to have taken in order to avoid the commission of an offence under the Bill is a matter essentially for the court to decide. For many hundreds of years many matters have had to be decided by our courts by reference to the criterion, "what is reasonable?" Nobody is better fitted to decide what is reasonable in the circumstances of a particular case than the court which investigates what the circumstances are. That test of reasonableness, that standard which exists both as part of our common law and under innumerable statutes, is one which has been administered by the courts without any kind of difficulty. For my part, and I think I can speak for most


Members on this side of the Committee and I hope for many on the opposite side, these are matters eminently fitted to be entrusted to the common sense of the 12 men on the Clapham omnibus, as they have been entrusted for hundreds of year in our legal history.

Mr. Gage: The Attorney-General has not really dealt with the point presented by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn). The point is not the way in which the defendant shall discharge the onus of proof which is put upon him, when he is accused of having red petrol in the tank of his car. The hon. Gentleman's point is that if, at the end of the day, the court is equally balanced, after hearing the explanation by the defendant, and if it is undecided, it must convict, according to the Bill. That is wrong. If the court is balanced in that way it must be in doubt, and that doubt

should belong to the defendant. That is the point upon which the Bill is a departure from our legal practice and that is the departure to which the hon. Member for King's Norton called attention. The point has not been answered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is quite different from the point in the Abramovitch case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to withdraw the Amendment, but that he will press it.

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Ropner): Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 182.

Division No. 140.]
AYES
[7.37 p.m


Amory, D Heathcoat
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Odey, G. W


Austin, H. Lewis
Hollis, M. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H


Baldwin, A. E.
Holmes, Sir J, Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bossom, A. C
Howard, Hon. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bowen, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Pickthorn, K


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Prescott, Stanley


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Raikes, H. V.


Byers, Frank
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rayner, Brig, R.


Carson, E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Robinson, Roland


Channon, H.
Lipson, D. L.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Corbett, Lieut.-Cot. U. (Ludlow)
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Davidson, Viscountess
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


De la Bère, R.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Duthie, W. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marsden, Capt. A.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gage, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gammans, L. D.
Maude, J. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Mellor, Sir J.



Granville, E. (Eye)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Mr. Studholme and


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Major Ramsay.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Barton, C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Battley, J. R.
Burke, W. A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Benson, G.
Chamberlain, R. A


Alpass, J. H.
Berry, H.
Champion, A. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Beswick, F.
Cluse, W. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Binns, J.
Cobb, F. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Blyton, W. R.
Cocks, F. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Coldrick, W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Comyns, Dr. L.


Bacon, Miss A.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Barstow, P. G.
Brown, George (Belper)
Crossman, R. H. S.




Daggar, G.
Jay, D. P. T.
Sharp, Granville


Daines, P.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jenkins, R. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Deer, G.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Skinnard, F. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Key, C. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Diamond, J.
King, E. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Dodds, N. N
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Snow, J. W.


Dumpleton, C. W
Kinley, J.
Solley, L. J.


Durbin, E. F. M
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Dye, S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sparks, J. A.


Eccles, D. M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Stamford, W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stross, Dr. B.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Longden, F.
Stubbs, A. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McAdam, W.
Swingler, S.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McGhee, H. G
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.
Symonds, A. L.


Fairhurst, F.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Farthing, W. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Follick, M.
Monslow, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Foot, M. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham E.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, A.
Tiffany, S.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)
Titterington, M. F.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Oliver, G. H.
Tolley, L.


Gibbins, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gilzean, A.
Pargiter, G. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Parkin, B. T.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Viant, S. P.


Grey, C. F.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Walkden, E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Pearson, A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Guy, W. H.
Peart, T. F.
Weitzman, D.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Perrins, W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Harrison, J.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Hicks, G.
Pritt, D. N.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Proctor, W. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


House, G.
Pryde, D. J.
Wigg, George


Hoy, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hubbard, T.
Reeves, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wise, Major F. J.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, A.
Woodburn, A.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)



Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A
Royle, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Janner, B
Sargood, R.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and




Mr. Hannan.

The Temporary Chairman: The next Amendment I propose to call is that in page 2, line 22, to leave out from the beginning, to "and," in line 25.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Colonel Ropner, whether you are not selecting the Amendment in line 18, to leave out "prove," and insert:
satisfy the Court that it might reasonably be true"?
I know that in its wording the Amendment appears to be the same as an Amendment which we have already discussed during our consideration of Clause 1. In fact, this Amendment affects very different categories of people. Clause 1 relates to offences by retailers of motor spirit. Clause 2 applies to offences by private motorists. The arguments adduced in support of the Amendment in Clause r referred to garage proprietors. No arguments were adduced

in regard to private motorists. In those circumstances, I do not know whether it would be in Order for me to ask you, Colonel Ropner, to reconsider your decision, because the point is materially different? Alternatively, if you will not permit a discussion on the Amendment, which might be short in view of the discussion we had previously, and which would be designed to obtain an explanatory and clear statement from the Attorney-General, I would ask if you would at least permit us to express our views on this Amendment by voting in the Lobby?

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendment to which the hon. and learned Member refers has not been selected by the Chair, but if he would like me to put it formally in order to give him an opportunity to divide the Committee upon it, I am prepared to do so.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out "prove," and to insert:
satisfy the Court that it might reasonably be true.

Question put, "That the word 'prove' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 93.

Division No 141.]
AYES
[7 46 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N
Perrins, W.


Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gibbins, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gibson, C. W.
Proctor, W. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Gilzean, A.
Pryde, D. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Reeves, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Grey, C. F.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Ayles, W. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Rhodes, H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Guy, W. H.
Ridealgh, Mrs M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Robens, A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Barstow, P. G
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Barton, C.
Harrison, J.
Royle, C.


Battley, J. R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Sargood, R.


Bechervaise, A. E
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Sharp, Granville


Benson, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Berry, H.
Hicks, G.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Beswick, F
Holman, P.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Binns, J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Blackburn, A. R.
House, G.
Skinnard, F. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Hoy, J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Snow, J. W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Solley, L. J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Brown, George (Belper)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Sparks, J. A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, W.


Callaghan, James
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.
Stross, Dr. B.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Janner, B.
Stubbs, A. E.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Swingler, S.


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Symonds, A. L.


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, R. H.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cobb, F. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Coldrick, W.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Collindridge, F
Key, C. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Kinley, J.
Tiffany, S.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Titterington, M. F


Crawley, A.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Tolley, L.


Crossman, R. H. S
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Turner-Samuels, M


Daggar, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Daines, P.
Longden, F.
Vernon, Mai. W. F


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McAdam, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McEntee, V. La T
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Weitzman, D.


Deer, G.
McLeavy, F.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Diamond, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mitchison, G. R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Dumpleton, C. W
Monslow, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham E.)
Wigg, George


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Moyle, A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Ewart, R.
Pargiter, G A
Wise, Major F. J.


Fairhurst, F.
Parkin, B. T.
Woodburn, A.


Farthing, W. J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)



Follick, M.
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Foot, M. M
Peart, T. F
Mr. Simmons and.




Mr. Popplewell.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Conant, Maj. R. J. E


Baldwin, A. E.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Butcher, H. W.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Bossom, A. C.
Byers, Frank
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C


Bowen, R.
Carson, E.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Challen, C
Davidson, Viscountess




De la Bère, R.
Lipson, D. L.
Prescott, Stanley


Dodds-Parker, A. U
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Price-White, Lt-.Col. D


Drewe, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Raikes, H. V.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Duthie, W. S.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Robinson, Roland


Gage, C.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Gammans, L. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Smithers, Sir W.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Grimston, R, V.
Manningham-Buller, R E
Sutcliffe, H.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Herbert, Sir A. P.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maude, J. C.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Hollis, M. C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Turton, R. H.


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Vane, W. M. F.


Howard, Hon. A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Walker-Smith, D.


Hudson, Rt. Hon, R. S. (Southport)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Odey, G. W.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lambert, Hon. G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pickthorn, K.



Langford-Holt, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Poole, O. B. S (Oswestry)
Mr. Studholme and




Major Ramsay.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move in page 2, line 22, to leave out from beginning, to "and" in line 25.
The effect of this Amendment is to remove one of the three things which a person found with commercial petrol in the tank of his vehicle has to prove in order to establish his innocence. In the first place, it does seem that this is a trifle unnecessary. If a person who is found with this dangerous fluid in the tank of his vehicle is able to establish things which lie has to establish in paragraphs (a) and (c) it would seem that he is entitled to be acquitted. But leaving that point, which I think is self-evident, as it stands, I should be grateful if the Attorney-General would clarify the effect and intention of paragraph (b).
I am not clear what is conveyed by the words "reasonably convenient." Is the matter governed by the simple opportunity to get rid of the petrol? That is to say, in its simplest terms, is it a case of whether or not a motorist's petrol tank has a plug in the bottom which can be pulled out, and the tank thereby emptied? Or does "reasonably convenient" govern the circumstances in which the motorist may find himself? How does it apply, for example, to someone who, having got this ominously coloured fluid into the tank of his vehicle, discovers that state of affairs when he is in the middle of the Yorkshire moors? Is he entitled to say, "It is not reasonably convenient from the point of view of my journey for me to get rid of the petrol now"? That is the first point on which I should be grateful

if the Attorney-General would direct his remarks. Does "reasonably convenient" relate solely to the mere opportunity of getting rid of the petrol, or does it also take into account the reasonable convenience of the motorist who is proceeding on, his journey?
I should also be grateful if the Attorney-General would indicate what, in his view, is the duty of what I may term the average reasonable motorist who discovers red petrol in the tank of his vehicle Is it his duty, immediately, and by every conceivable means, to get rid of it? Or is he entitled to proceed to the nearest petrol station? Has he, when he gets rid of it in this way, to seek out some enforcement officer, or police officer, in order to draw his attention to the matter? Or is he supposed to get rid of the contaminating fluid by having it poured out under the nearest hedge? At the moment it is not clear what is the duty which it is sought by this Subsection to impose upon the motorist; and it will be appreciated that this is of some importance to the people concerned. After all, it is one of the three things which, as the Clause now stands, they have to establish in order to establish a defence.
8.0 p.m.
I am sure that most hon. Members would welcome the learned Attorney-General's guidance upon what exactly the Government have in mind regarding the duty to be imposed upon the motorist by the Subsection. I put the case, therefore, on these three points: first, a clarification of "reasonably convenient," which I


think the Attorney-General already apprehends; secondly, what is the duty imposed by the Subsection; and thirdly, why it is necessary to have this Subsection in view of the comprehensive provisions of paragraphs (a) and (c). It is in the hope that satisfactory answers to all these points may be forthcoming, that I beg to move.

The Attorney-General: I had sought at an earlier stage in our discussions to indicate the purpose of paragraph (b). It is to provide for the case where a motorist, not knowing that red petrol had been put into his tank in the first instance, subsequently discovers it, either because his attention is drawn to the fact by the police, or while attending to his motor car he discovers that the petrol in his tank is not white as it should have been. In that case, unless some provision is made in this Bill, it might be suggested that the motorist would become guilty of an offence because he would no longer be able to say that he had no knowledge that the petrol in his tank was red petrol.
One has to provide for the kind of case where, after the petrol had been put into the tank, a person may be in the wilds of Scotland or in the middle of the Yorkshire moors, when suddenly it is brought to his notice that, contrary to the law and contrary to what he had up to that moment supposed, the petrol in his tank is red petrol. We have sought to deal with that kind of situation by providing that when he discovers that the petrol in his tank is red petrol, he should take steps to have it removed when he reasonably can. What is a reasonably convenient opportunity, as I said when we were discussing this matter before, is a matter for the court to decide. I would myself interpret these words as meaning—and I have no doubt about this matter—that "reasonably" in this context means reasonable in all the circumstances, including the journey which the motorist is on, the time available, and whether he has money in his pocket to pay for a fresh supply of petrol at the next garage, and all the circumstances which may be presented to the court, if indeed the matter comes to the court at all.
No duty is cast upon the motorist in this Bill to inform the police if he has discovered red petrol in his tank, but I think he would be well advised, if he is a law-abiding citizen who desires to assist in the administration of the law and the

suppression of the black market, to inform the police of what has happened and to give them every assistance in discovering how it was that red petrol came to be put into his tank.
I was also asked by the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) what the motorist should do with the petrol found in his tank, whether he should pour it out into a hedge. The Bill does not contain any provision as to what should be done after the petrol has been removed from the tank. The only offence created by this Bill is the offence of having red petrol in the tank or in a pump as the case may be. The motorist who found red petrol in the tank of his private vehicle would consider whether he had other and legitimate uses for such petrol. He might conceivably add it to his stock for use in his petrol lighters, or he might put it in his motor mower, or, what I should say was the more likely course, he could exchange it at the next garage for the type of petrol it was legitimate for him to use.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sure the whole Committee is grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation of the reason for the inclusion in this Measure of these four lines; but I find the grounds for their inclusion to be not entirely convincing, and I hope that I may be able to carry him with me. I do not want to spend much time on the defect in this Bill that it does not provide any guide as to what the motorist should do if he found red petrol in his tank. I do not suggest, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, that red petrol should go to form a black market for fuel for petrol lighters or motor mowers.
One wants to keep in mind what the main object of this Clause is. As I apprehend it, it is to protect private motorists using red petrol. If one proceeds from that, one gets the provision that, if red petrol is found in the private motorist's tank he is, prima facie, guilty of an offence. Under this Clause, there are three provisos which he has to satisfy in order to secure his acquittal on a charge. The first thing which he has to prove is that the petrol was put into the tank without his connivance, knowledge, or consent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this second proviso was there to protect the motorist


in one sense because, if the motorist going along the road discovered by chance that he had red petrol in his tank, the Attorney-General's argument was that if he went on with the petrol in his tank, it would not be open to him to say he did not know it was there, and he might render himself liable to conviction. That is really not so. Even though he might know the petrol was in his tank, he could avoid conviction if he satisfied the court that it was put into his tank without his knowledge.
Subsequently acquired knowledge would not affect his opportunity of establishing that matter, and I do suggest that, far from protecting the motorist, this is really putting a very difficult burden upon him. If he is to be acquitted, he has first to satisfy the court of one or other of these two things; first, that the petrol was put in without his consent or connivance, and secondly, that he did not know it was commercial petrol. If he has done that, and he has proved that he has been careful also, he is entitled to be acquitted. But something more than honesty and care are demanded in this Measure The motorist has also to prove that although the petrol was put into the tank without his knowledge, consent and connivance, he did not afterwards discover that the petrol was commercial petrol. If he fails to satisfy the court that he did not afterwards discover the petrol was commercial petrol, he will be guilty of an offence, whether or not he played any part at all in the putting of this petrol in his tank.
What is the reason for that? I would suggest that there is no possible justification for it, but that there is an alternative. Under Subsection (1, b), having proved that he did not know that petrol was put into his tank, he has then to prove either that he did not discover afterwards that it was there or that he had no reasonably convenient opportunity after discovering it to get rid of it. I do not understand why these heavy penalties should be imposed upon a man merely because he fails to satisfy a court that after it was put into his tank, he did not discover that it was commercial petrol. I fail to see why he should suffer these heavy penalties if, in the opinion of the court, not having anything to do with the putting of the petrol into the tank, he failed

to take a reasonably convenient opportunity, after discovering that it was commercial petrol of removing it from his tank.
Why should this man who, ex hypothesi, has not put the petrol in, and had nothing to do with putting the petrol in, be found guilty of this serious criminal offence merely because he has failed to satisfy the court that he had no reasonably convenient opportunity for getting rid of the petrol? That is one of the conditions set out in Subsection (1, b). He has two alternatives, one of which he must satisfy. If he does not satisfy one or other of them, the defence of a private motorist under this Clause cannot succeed. Why should he be convicted because he has failed to get rid of the petrol? That seems to be unnecessary and somewhat wasteful of petrol instead of being economical. In view of the remarks made by the Attorney-General during the Second Reading Debate, I would say that no one is in any way casting a cloak upon the man misusing petrol. The omission of these three lines would in no way help the wicked motorist engaged in black market petrol activities.

Mr. John Paton: Surely, it is not an offence that the man has not got rid of the petrol, but it would be an offence if, knowing that the petrol was petrol which it was illegal for him to use, he went on and continued to use it?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That might be an offence, but I would draw attention to the words of this Clause which create the offence. The offence referred to at the beginning of the Clause is that having petrol of the wrong colour in the tank. Prima facie that makes one guilty of an offence. A man can prove his innocence if he satisfies the provisos. If under the first proviso one can prove to the court that one had nothing to do with the putting in of the petrol, that it was done without consent, connivance or knowledge, that is not enough. I agree that it should not be enough. There should be something more than honesty. There should be care, and care is provided for in Subsection (1, c). Assuming that a man satisfies the court of his honesty in the matter and of the care he has exercised, he will not get off under this Clause unless he goes further and satisfies the court that he did not afterwards discover that


the petrol was commercial petrol or, alternatively, that he had no reasonably convenient opportunity after discovering it, for removing the petrol from the tank. My argument is that the omission of these words would in no way encourage the misuse of petrol. The man who put petrol into his tank, who consented to its use, or lacked care in seeing what was or was not put into his tank, would stand to be convicted.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Paton: I am sorry to interrupt again. Suppose, without my consent or connivance, eight gallons of red petrol were put into my tank and I proceeded on my journey without knowledge that that had been done. Therefore, I satisfy Subsection (1, a). But after I have expended about one gallon of my eight gallons, I discover that I am running my car on illegal red petrol. Would the hon. and learned Member say I commit no offence if I proceed then to exhaust the other seven gallons of illegal red petrol?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I assume that the hon. Member is a law abiding motorist. I assume that for his seven or eight gallons of red petrol he has given up seven or eight coupons available for white petrol. That may happen in many cases. Morally the hon. Member would not be guilty of any offence at all. He has not acquired more petrol, whether it is coloured red or white.

Mr. Paton: The hon. and learned Member is shifting the ground of the argument.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: No, I am not. I am meeting the hon. Member's argument. I say that in the case he has put there is no moral guilt on his part.

Mr. Paton: That is not the argument.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would the hon. Member allow me to continue? He ought not to be convicted of this serious criminal offence involving heavy penalties after innocently giving up the coupons. I should say that he would not properly be convicted of any criminal offence. One would assume that directly he discovered the fact that it was red petrol he would communicate that information to the police to assist in the detection of the man

who had perpetrated the trick upon him; but to make him guilty of this offence is wrong.
There is a further point with which the Attorney-General did not deal. We cannot leave the question of reasonably convenient merely to the varied decisions of a number of courts without any guidance at all. The matter depends entirely on the angle from which it is considered. Is it reasonably convenient from the motorist's angle of his personal convenience, or is it a reasonably convenient opportunity for getting the petrol out of his tank? A motorist might pull up at a garage to have a few gallons of petrol put into his tank and then discover that the balance in the tank was red. A garage would provide reasonably convenient opportunity to take the petrol out. If it is looked at from that angle, obviously it is reasonably convenient. On the other hand, it might be most inconvenient to the motorist who may not have enough coupons to enable him to get sufficient new petrol to get him home. In a strict penal statute like this, the matter should not be left so vaguely. I ask the Attorney-General, bearing in mind that I suggest that his first argument was wrong, to reconsider the matter and see whether he cannot dispense with these words which are bound to cause conflict of decision.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Attorney-General, in response to the invitation from this side of the Committee, explained the meaning of the Subsection with his customary clarity and lucidity. In so doing, he made it clear that this Subsection adds nothing whatever to the Bill from the point of view of limiting the consumption of petrol. We are concerned here solely with petrol which has come into a motorist's tank in circumstances wholly consistent with that motorist's innocence. We are concerned, under this Subsection, only with what that motorist shall do with the petrol which he has, morally quite innocently, acquired. What the Attorney-General told us was that this motorist shall be entitled to use the petrol for purposes other than that of propelling his vehicle, and he went on to suggest purposes for which he could, apparently, use it—for his motor-mower, his cigarette lighter and so on.
The only thing, alternatively, which he suggested, and which I thought myself a perilous suggestion, was that he might


exchange it for white petrol, but, whichever of these purposes for which he might legitimately use it, he consumes or uses that petrol, and, for that reason, I do not believe that this Subsection helps the Bill to any extent at all from the point of view of conserving the nation's petrol supplies. All it does is to limit the uses to which a motorist can put this petrol. That having been explained by the Attorney-General to be the purpose of this Subsection, it seems to me that he has demonstrated with great clarity the unnecessary nature of this Subsection. We are not, presumably, concerned in this Bill to do anything but prevent the misuse of the nation's petrol supply. This Clause clearly does not do that. It merely limits the use of petrol once it is acquired, and, as such, it appears to be completely unnecessary.

The Attorney-General: I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) that the real question here is whether a person who uses petrol, which he acquired innocently but which he subsequently discovers to be commercial petrol, should be guilty of an offence. If we do not have some such provision as this Subsection, the motorist who did not know that commercial petrol had been put in his tank in the first instance, but who discovered it immediately afterwards, would be able to use it in his vehicle, although that vehicle was a private one and not entitled to use that kind of petrol at all.
Perhaps this is rather like the kind of case that one might get in which a person suddenly discovers that somebody else's property has been left in his car. He would find himself in serious trouble with the courts if he converted that property to his own use. Similarly, if he finds himself in possession of stolen goods, although it is true he would not be guilty of the offence of receiving if he had not known at the time of receipt that they were stolen, he would, none the less, be guilty of some other offence, such as that of being in unlawful possession. On the whole, it seemed to us that it was right to have some penal provision to cover the case of a man who, although he acquired petrol innocently in the first instance, took advantage of the mistake that had been made and used that kind of petrol to which he was not entitled.

I say quite frankly to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I appreciate what has been said about the matter both in his speech and in that of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I will discuss the matter with the Minister of Fuel and Power, and will reconsider the effect, the drafting and the necessity for this paragraph in the Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said, but that rather places us in a difficulty. Presumably, we shall have no other opportunity in this House of considering the altered wording. Though I welcome his assurance that he will reconsider the matter, I suggest that probably the most satisfactory way of dealing with it would be to leave out these three lines now and insert something else, if that is required—because it may not be required in this part of the Bill—in another place. I feel that that would be the right course to pursue, and that this Bill would be tidier and more effective if we left out paragraph (b), and left the matter with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he has had an opportunity of consulting the Minister of Fuel and Power, to move something else into the Bill. Therefore, while I appreciate his intentions, I think we must express our view that these three lines should not be included.

The Attorney-General: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will be content to accept my assurance that I will consult with the Minister of Fuel and Power at the earliest opportunity. He will appreciate that, in the circumstances in which I am placed at the moment, I have no opportunity of consulting with anybody, and I do not feel able to agree to the deletion of these lines, because it raises issues of policy of some little difficulty. I have appreciated the points which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, and I can, at least, promise him that I shall consider the matter, not without some sympathy for the views which he has expressed.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I appreciate the offer of the learned Attorney-General and also his difficulties. All the same, I think these three lines ought to come out of this Bill. I accept his assurance, but accepting his assurance will not stop him


putting them back if he can think of nothing better. I think something better than that should be put in, and that we must express that view.

Question put, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 91.

The Chairman: It might be convenient if the next three Amendments on the Order Paper were discussed together.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out from "he," to "shall." in line 33.
I agree that it would be convenient to discuss also the two Amendments which follow in line 33, leave out "each"; and in line 33, at end insert:
and if the commercial petrol so acquired is put into a private motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle or the person in charge thereof at the time it was put in shall be guilty of an offence.
These are drafting Amendments. They relate to the responsibility of the employer where petrol is put into the tank of his motor car by someone who, for instance, wants to take the car and use it for his own purposes. As the first four lines of Subsection (2) at present read, immediately petrol is acquired by the user of a private motor vehicle—by anyone who is not the owner—the owner or the person in charge of that vehicle becomes guilty of an offence. It is extraordinary that the Attorney-General could be found guilty of a prima facie criminal offence if someone, without his knowledge, buys petrol for use in his car. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would then have to bring himself within the walls of the proviso. This is a drafting Amendment and if our proposal is accepted the Clause will read as follows:
If any person acquires any commercial petrol for use in a private motor vehicle, he shall be guilty of an offence and if the commercial petrol so acquired is put into a private

motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle or the person in charge thereof at the time it was put in shall be guilty of an offence.
This would not materially alter the purpose of the Clause but would provide for the case where, for instance, someone who knew of my habit to leave my car in a particular place wanted to take it during my absence, bought some red petrol and did not put it into the vehicle. Under the Amendment the Prima facie liability of the owner of the car would arise from the moment the petrol was put into his vehicle. If the purchase was made with his consent or connivance, even though the petrol was not put into his car, presumably he would be liable to be charged with aiding or abetting the commission of an offence.

The Attorney-General: I am not certain that there is not something more than drafting in these Amendments. If they are merely drafting they do not make any improvement on the present Clause. They are defective in that they leave open whether it is the owner or the person in charge who commits the offence contemplated by the Clause. The intention of the Clause as drafted is that if an owner allows someone else to have charge of his motor car, and that other person commits an offence, the owner shall be liable also unless he shows, not only that he did not know the offence was committed, but that he had taken reasonable steps to prevent it.
If I allow my car to be used by some other person I must take care to see to it that it is not made the means of breaking the law. Unless I can persuade the


court that it is reasonably probable that I knew nothing about the matter and that I had taken reasonable precautions, for instance, that I had inquired from the borrower before lending him my car what coupons he had and where he had got his petrol, I would be guilty of an offence under this Clause. That is part of the scheme as recommended by the Russell Vick Committee in order to ensure that those motor vehicles which can so easily be made the subject of breaches of the law are watched and the utmost care taken to ensure that such breaches do not take place.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the Attorney-General has faced up to the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). Assume for one moment that someone acquires commercial petrol first, and then approaches the learned Attorney-General and asks him for the loan of his car. That is a possible contingency which is covered by this Clause as it stands. What justification is there for putting on the learned Attorney-General the necessity to establish a defence. That is our Amendment. Once the petrol gets into the tank we accept the proposition that the owner is called upon to explain the matter, but as this Clause stands it covers the earlier stage of the simple acquisition of petrol for use in a private motor vehicle. That seems to go unnecessarily far. I do not think a large number of cases will arise under it, but it is conceivable that some may arise and it seems quite unjust that the owner of a motor car, who knows absolutely nothing about the matter should be called upon to put up a defence.
I call in aid the speech of the Attorney-General on Second Reading. His point was—and I will not quote the particular paragraph at length—that where someone was in a position of particular advantage of knowing the facts it was right to put the onus on him. That principle does not cover the case of the owner of a car where someone else acquires the petrol with the intent to use it subsequently in that motor car. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at this again. On the face of it that is quite unjust and from the point of view of enforcement quite impossible.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am puzzled as to what the Subsection applies. It cannot apply to a servant, because as I understand the Bill if a chauffeur acquires petrol it is put to the charge of the owner and and owner is responsible. This is solely limited to the person who is not a servant and gets the loan of a car. As the Clause stands, it is anyone in the wide world. It does not matter whether he has anything to do with the car. If any person acquires commercial petrol for use in my motor car I am liable to be summoned under this Clause. I may not know anything about it, and I may not know the man, but if he says that he got the petrol to put into my car I am guilty of an offence. The Attorney-General might very well argue that in that case I would be able to establish my defence. Perhaps I should, but why should I be prosecuted at all and required to establish a defence?
If what the Attorney-General means is that if any person in charge of a motor vehicle acquires commercial petrol for use in that vehicle then certain things may happen. That would be an extension of the Government's theory which I raised on Clause 2, but this is wider than that. It covers a person who has not yet had my permission to use my car. That cannot be intended, and, therefore, I ask the Attorney-General two questions. First of all, is this intended to be limited to a person who has permission to use a particular vehicle; and, secondly, is it limited to that person who acquired the petrol after he has acquired the permission to use the car? It is very unlikely that when a man asks the owner for permission to use his car he will say to the owner, "I have some red petrol which I am going to use in your car." The Attorney-General will remember the complete code in this Bill for catching the accessories, those who aid and abet or counsel and procure. What is the intention? If we knew the intention we would be in a better position to criticise the drafting, but to say that an owner is deemed to be guilty of an offence committed by a man he never heard of merely because that man says, "I intend to put that petrol into Mr. A. 's car" is drafting which ought not to pass this Committee. I hope the Attorney-General will tell us what is the intention, and if the intention is narrower, that he will produce the necessary words to amend the Clause. When he does that we


will see whether it is in accord with the principles which the Committee have approved.

8.45 P.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I hope the Attorney-General will not listen to the case which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for it is absolutely a fallacious case. Suppose, he says, there is an owner of a car which someone is going to borrow and after the borrowing he acquires certain petrol. That may very well be so, but until the matter is investigated the true position cannot be ascertained. If after investigation it is found that the petrol was acquired afterwards and that the owner was perfectly innocent about the matter then paragraph (a) comes in, and that would be a perfect defence to that charge.

The Attorney-General: It is fairly clear from the wording of the Clause that this is not possibly going to apply to the acquisition of commercial petrol made in advance of some transfer of a car by an owner to a borrower. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) will look at the language he will see that the offence relates to the acquisition of commercial petrol by a person who at the time of the acquisition is in charge of the car. It is that person as well as the owner who may be guilty of an offence, and the intention—

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: He and any other person in charge.

The Attorney-General: No.

Mr. Reid: He need not be in charge.

The Attorney-General: I see the point and I will consider that Clause. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) will accept my assurance that the Clause will certainly be considered in the light of what he has said.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is an error in drafting and I do not think there is any alteration of substance in the opinions held on either side of the Committee. In view of the assurance by the Attorney-General I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Other offences.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, at the end, to insert:
Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with the offence mentioned in paragraph (a) hereof to satisfy the Court that the commercial petrol was put into the pump by mistake and not with the intent of procuring the misuse of petrol, and that it shall be a defence for any person charged with the offence mentioned in paragraph (b) hereof to satisfy the Court that it might reasonably be true that he genuinely believed that the vehicle was not a private motor vehicle.
This is an important Amendment and one of substance. We feel the creation of new criminal offences carrying heavy penalties is also important, but this one is perhaps more important than some we have been discussing. It will be seen that under this Clause everyone who is not caught out by Clauses 1 and 2 is collected here and, what is more, any one who
puts commercial petrol into a pump used for the purpose of the supply by retail of motor spirit, not being a pump marked in the prescribed manner
should be guilty of an offence.
This Clause is different from Clauses 1 and 2, because there is no provision giving a defence to anyone other than a person authorised by the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Petroleum Board. In the previous Clauses there have been provisos providing a defence for a man who has acted innocently and carefully, and who has yet found himself in a difficulty. Here there is no proviso, and what we suggest is that the words of this Amendment should be added and that this proviso should be incorporated in the Bill:
Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with the offence mentioned in paragraph (a)"—
that is putting petrol into a wrong pump—
to satisfy the court that the commercial petrol was put into the pump by mistake and not with the intent of procuring the misuse of petrol.
Further, we suggest that it shall be a defence for any person charged under paragraph (b)—that is, putting commercial petrol into a private motor car tank—
to satisfy the court that it might reasonably be true that he genuinely believed that the vehicle was not a private motor vehicle.
So far as paragraph (a) is concerned, I suggest that there should be provision for


a case of bona fide mistakes. Unless that provision is made, proof of the facts as stated in paragraph (a) is sufficient and the man is convicted. So far as an offence created under paragraph (b) is concerned, the terms of the Amendment might, in view of what the Attorney-General said earlier, require some slight alterations to conform to his views, but that is merely a matter of drafting. Here, again, I suggest one must have a provision for dealing with a case where the garage attendant, in all innocence—misled, tricked or by a fraud—is induced to put the wrong petrol into a particular car. He should not be convicted automatically, and it is for this reason that the second part of the Amendment is inserted.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I support this Amendment because it seems to me that this Clause is one of the most astonishing in the Bill. It is quite plainly one of absolute liability. There is no attempt to qualify the liability in any way whatever. We are not here dealing with a question of onus of proof or balance of probability. If anyone does any of the things referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this Clause, his responsibility is absolute and he can put forward no defence of any kind whatever. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has referred to paragraphs (a) and (b), but I would like to say something further about paragraph (b). I asked a question on an earlier Clause with a view to discovering whether it was intended that garage hands should be included in the Clause, and the Attorney-General clearly indicated that it was the intention of the Government to catch garage hands. If this Clause becomes law as it now stands, any garage hand who puts commercial petrol into the tank of a private car, without any possibility of his being able to set up any defence whatsoever—

The Chairman: The Amendment appears to deal only with paragraph (a).

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: And it also deals with (b)—

The Chairman: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is in Order.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Amendment deals with paragraph (a) to begin with, and then deals with paragraph (b)

separately, and it is only in regard to paragraph (b) that I desire to address the Committee. As I was saying, under that paragraph an absolute liability is placed on a garage hand who puts commercial petrol into the tank of a private car. I do not want to cook up all sorts of imaginary circumstances, in which a garage hand might inadvertently put petrol of the wrong kind into the wrong car, but I think it would be recognised in all parts of the Committee that it is a thing which might occasionally happen quite easily, by inadvertence, in any garage.
I can easily imagine circumstances in which a man is talking to a friend or otherwise permitting his mind to wander—

Mr. Follick: Some friend!

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It may be that the hon. Member's imagination does not go as far as I have just indicated. If he has never done anything of that sort by inadvertence, I can only say he deserves the respect of all Members of the community. For my part I am quite certain a mistake in this respect could easily be made. What is unfair is to preclude anyone from putting forward the plea that he has made a mistake. I will not say it might not be reasonable to cast a very heavy burden of proof on the garage hand who has made such a mistake to show that it was made by inadvertance, or otherwise in excusable circumstances, but my complaint is that this Clause gives the garage hand no right whatever.
Immediately the facts are proved against him of putting the wrong petrol in the wrong tank, the court cannot even hear him put forward a plea in mitigation. In those circumstances I would ask the Government, if they are not prepared to accept the Amendment in our precise terms, to leave the matter open to the garage hand or some such person in charge of the pump to show that there might be innocent circumstances which would preclude him from having done what amounts to an offence under the Clause.

9.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I agree that, at first sight, it may appear illogical not to provide under Clause 3 the defences made available under Clauses 1 and 2. But


Clause 3 is dealing with an entirely different case. In Clauses 1 and 2, we are dealing with the garage owner or a car owner who may become criminally liable for the result of what may have been the act of some third party—the man in charge of the petrol pump or the garage hand.
Clause 3, in contradistinction, deals with the person who, by his own physical act, puts the wrong petrol into the wrong pump or the wrong tank. I confess that, unlike hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, I am not sufficiently credulous to think that mistakes of this kind on the part of the person who puts the wrong petrol in the pump or tank, and also on the part of the person who receives the wrong petrol in the wrong pump or the wrong tank, are in fact very likely to occur. It seems to us to be right that in the first class of case, dealing with the situation which arises under Clauses 1 and 2, the garage owner should be entitled to say that what was done was done without his consent, or the motorist should be entitled to say that he had done all that he reasonably could to prevent the wrong petrol from being put into his tank. But when the man himself puts the wrong petrol into his tank, then we say that there is no reason for any special defence.
After all, there are a great many instances under our existing law—some of them substantial cases and some comparatively trivial—where absolute liability exists, and the offender is not allowed to come before the court and say, "It is too bad, but I made a mistake." One finds from experience that if the law does not provide that mistakes shall be allowed to constitute defences to criminal proceedings, mistakes are far less likely to occur, and that is what we think would be the result here. If garage hands and others who may be within the scope of this Clause know that it will be no defence for them to say, "Well, we made a mistake," they will be very much more careful to see that the way in which they deal with the petrol within their charge complies with the law. There is nothing novel about this. There are many other cases on the statute book.
The licensee who himself sells liquor to a person who is drunk but has all the appearance of being sober may commit

a mistake. That is unfortunate, but it may be a mistake which will result in the licensee losing his licence. A married man who marries again in the belief hold in good faith that he has been divorced, nevertheless, commits bigamy, although his mistake may be based on the opinion he receives from counsel whom he took the precaution of consulting before he went through the second form of marriage. The man who assaults a police constable on duty is guilty of that serious offence, although he had no idea that the man was a police constable, still less that he was on duty at the time. Finally—because I do not want to cite a lot of cases where mistake is no defence at all—I mention this case to show the perils to which we all expose ourselves from time to time. The man who receives into his house two or more lunatics, although he does not know they are lunatics, may be held to be guilty of an offence. I am afraid that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The case of a driver employed by the Petroleum Board who earns his livelihood by driving lorries about the country and discharging petrol into garage proprietors' petrol tanks is in no way analogous to the case of the man who receives two lunatics into his house. It is clear from what the Attorney-General has said that the man who makes an error in connecting up the pipe with the wrong tap or who allows the petrol to go into the wrong tank commits a criminal offence which renders him liable to a heavy fine, and he is not entitled to secure his acquittal if the specific act was done purely innocently and by mistake. In those circumstances we can do nothing more than show our disgust at the unnecessary harshness of this Measure for not making provision for that defence by voting in the Division Lobby.

The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman may not have appreciated that it is, of course, open under this Clause for the court to dismiss the case, as no doubt it would in the circumstances contemplated by him, under the Probation of Offenders Act or with a caution. This is not one of the cases where an automatic penalty follows.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 198.

Division No. 142.]
AYES.
[8.28 p.m.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gibbins, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Alpass, J. H.
Gibson, C. W.
Proctor, W. T.


Attewell, H. C
Gilzean, A.
Pryde, D. J


Awbery, S. S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Ayles, W. H.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Reeves, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bacon, Miss A.
Grey, C. F.
Rhodes, H.


Baird, J
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A J
Guy, W. H.
Robens, A.


Barstow, P G
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Barton, C.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Battley, J. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Royle, C.


Bechervaise, A. E
Harrison, J.
Sargood, R.


Benson, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Sharp, Granville


Berry, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Beswick, F.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Bins, G. H. C
Holman, P.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Binns, J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Skinnard, F. W.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hoy, J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Blyton, W. R.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Snow, J. W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Solley, L. J.


Brook, D (Halifax)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Sparks, J. A.


Brown, George (Belper)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Janner, B.
Stross, Dr. B.


Callaghan, James
Jay, D. P. T.
Stubbs, A. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Swingler, S.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Jenkins, R. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Champion, A. J
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Symonds, A. L.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cobb, F. A.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cocks, F. S.
Key, C. W.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Coldrick, W.
King, E. M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Collindridge, F
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Kinley, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Lawson, Rt. Hon J. J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Tiffany, S.


Crawley, A.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Titterington, M. F.


Crossman, R H. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Tolley, L.


Daggar, G.
Longden, F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Daines, P.
Lyne, A. W
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McAdam, W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
McEntee, V. La T
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, E.


Deer, G
McLeavy, F.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield)
Weitzman, D.


Diamond, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, W T. (Walsall)


Dodds, N. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham E.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Donovan, T.
Moyle, A.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Dumpleton, C. W
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Durbin, E. F. M.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J. (Derby)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Oldfield, W. H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Ewart, R.
Parkin, B. T.
Wise, Major F. J.


Fairhurst, F.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Woodburn, A.


Farthing, W. J
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Follick, M.
Pearson, A.



Foot, M. M
Peart, T. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Perrins, W.
Mr. Hannan and


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Popplewell, E
Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Byers, Frank


Baldwin, A. E.
Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan
Carson, E.


Beamish, Maj. T V. H
Braithwaite, Lt. -Comdr. J. G.
Channon, H.


Bossom, A. C
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Clarke, Col. R. S.


Bowen, R
Butcher, H. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M




Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Low, A. R. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Reid, Rt. Hon. J S C (Hillhead)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Robinson, Roland


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Ropner, Col. L.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
MacDonald, Sir M (Inverness)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Drawe, C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Smithers, Sir W.


Duthie, W. S.
MacLeod, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Gage, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Studholme, H. G.


Gammans, L. D.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, H.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maude, J. C.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mellor, Sir J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Grimston, R. V.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A F


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Turton, R. H.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hollis, M. C.
Odey, G. W.
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Howard, Hon. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Walker-Smith, D.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wheatley, Colonel M. j. (Dorset, E.)


Hutchison, Lt. -Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
White, J, B. (Canterbury)


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Pickthorn, K.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lambert, Hon. G.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)



Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Prescott, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H
Price-White, Lt-.Col. D
Brigadier Mackeson and


Lipson, D. L.
Raikes, H. V.
Major Conant.


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ramsay, Maj. S

Division No. 143.]
AYES.
[9.7 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Beamish, Maj. T V. H
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Pickthorn, K.


Bossom, A. C
Howard, Hon. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bowen, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Prescott, Stanley


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Price-White, Lt-.Col. D


Braithwaite, Lt. -Comdr. J. G
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Raikes, H. V.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Butcher, H. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Byers, Frank
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)


Carson, E.
Lipson, D. L.
Robinson, Roland


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ropner, Col, L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Low, A. R. W.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


De la Bère, R.
MacLeod, J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Vane, W. M. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Maude, J. C.
Wakefield, Sir W W.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mellor, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, D.


Gage, C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gammans, L. D.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grimston, R. V.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.



Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Odey, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Herbert, Sir A. P
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H
Mr. Studholme and




Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Deer, G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Janner, B.


Alpass, J. H.
Diamond, J.
Jay, D. P. T.


Attewell, H. C.
Dodds, N. N.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Awbery, S. S.
Donovan, T.
Jenkins, R. H.


Ayles, W. H.
Dumpleton, C. W
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Durbin, E. F. M.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Bacon, Miss A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Baird, J.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Key, C. W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
King, E. M.


Barstow, P G
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Barton, C.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Kinley, J.


Battley, J. R.
Ewart, R.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Bechervaise, A. E
Fairhurst, F.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Benson, G.
Farthing, W J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Berry, H.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Beswick, F
Follick, M.
Lyne, A. W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Foot, M. M.
McAdam, W.


Binns, J.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McEntee, V. La T


Blackburn, A. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N
McGhee, H. G.


Blyton, W. R.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
McLeavy, F.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gilzean, A.
Mitchison, G. R.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Glanville, J. E. (Conselt)
Morley, R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham E.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood)
Moyle, A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Grenfell, D. R.
Nichol, Mrs M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Callaghan, James
Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Castle, Mrs B. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Champion, A. J
Guy, W. H.
Oldfield, W. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Oliver, G. H.


Cobb, F. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cocks, F. S.
Hardy, E. A
Pargiter, G. A.


Coldrick, W.
Harrison, J.
Parkin, B. T.


Collindridge, F.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paton, Mrs. F. (Ruslcliffe)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.


Crawley, A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Perrins, W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hoy, J.
Popplewell, E.


Daggar, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Daines, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pryde, D. J




Pursey, Cmdr. H
Soskice, Sir Frank
Vernon, Maj W. F


Reeves, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Viant, S. P.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Stamford, W.
Walkden, E.


Rhodes, H.
Stross, Dr. B
Weitzman, D.


Ridealgh, Mrs M
Stubbs, A. E
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Robens, A.
Swingler, S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Sylvester, G. O
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Symonds, A. L.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Royle, C.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Sargood, R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Sharp, Granville
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Simmons, C. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wise, Major F. J.


Skeffington, A. M
Thurtle, Ernest
Woodburn, A.


Skeffington-Lodge, T C
Tiffany, S
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Skinnard, F. W.
Titterington, M. F
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Tolley, L



Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Turner-Samuels, M
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Solley, L. J
Ungoed-Thomas, L
Mr. Snow and




Mr. George Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.15 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: In each of the two previous Clauses we have a proviso under which a person has the power to prove himself innocent. In this Clause there is only a proviso which says that a person authorised by the Ministry of Fuel and Power or by the Petroleum Board to enforce this Measure may be absolved from the penalties which are provided in the Bill. It is wrong that paragraphs (a) and (b) should be classed with paragraphs (c), (d) and (e). In paragraphs (a) and (b) two offences are mentioned which might conceivably be committed in error and not deliberately, but no one would suppose for a moment that the offences in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) could be committed deliberately.
The case for trying to justify finding a person guilty for offences committed under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) is far greater than under paragraphs (a) and (b). I would therefore ask the Attorney-General to tell us at a later stage whether he would consider putting in a proviso that persons who commit offences under paragraphs (a) and (b) are allowed to prove their innocence, whereas under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) they are not allowed to do so.

The Chairman: The form of paragraphs (a) and (b) has already been decided by the Division which the Committee has just taken. The hon. and gallant Gentleman therefore cannot argue that point.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am trying to deal with the Clause as a whole, which I understood to be in Order at this stage.

It seems to me that there is a great difference between the first two paragraphs of the Clause and the last three paragraphs, and I am suggesting to the Attorney-General that before we come to the later stage of the Bill he should look into the possibility of inserting a proviso in the Clause to make it possible for a person charged under paragraphs (a) and (b) to prove his innocence, leaving the Clause as it stands for paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), under which I do not think offences could be committed unless they were deliberate.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Disqualification of retail dealers for twelve months after conviction.)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, after "months," to insert:
less any period during which the operation of that Subsection was in force prior to the order of the court suspending it.
This is almost a drafting Amendment. The Clause provides for the automatic disqualification for 12 months of retailers convicted of offences under previous Clauses. It is provided in Subsection (6) that where a person who has been convicted appeals against his conviction, the disqualification for carrying on his business is suspended pending the appeal. There is a further provision in the concluding words under which, if the appeal fails and the conviction is therefore sustained, the disqualification shall run for 12 months from the dismissal of the appeal. It may well be the case that


where such an accused person unsuccessfully appeals he does not receive notice of his disqualification for some days after the original conviction in the court of first instance. Where that is so, the effect of the Clause as it now stands is that he suffers disqualification for 12 months plus that number of days which elapsed before the disqualification was suspended.
The effect, therefore, is that someone who unsuccessfully appeals is by reason only of that unsuccessful appeal submitted to a slightly longer period of disqualification from carrying on his business than if he had not appealed. The number of days will in general probably be small, which is why I suggested that this Amendment is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. The Amendment will, however, have the effect of preventing persons from being automatically penalised by exercising their right of appeal. The Attorney-General will be well aware that in the case of other offences where an appeal fails it is open to the appellate court to direct that the sentence shall run from the date of conviction or the date of appeal; it is within the discretion of an appellate court, which can in that way on occasion mark its view of the genuineness of the appeal. Here, where the penalty is automatic and the provision as to the date from which the disqualification runs on dismissal of the appeal is automatic, there is no discretion. It seemed to us that there would be an automatic increase in the penalty in the case of any person who unsuccessfully appealed unless he had succeeded in getting the disqualification suspended from the day of conviction. I think that the Bill would be a better Bill and would be less inequitable if this Amendment were accepted.

The Attorney-General: Under the normal provisions of the law, for example under the provisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act, when a person appeals against his sentence and his appeal is eventually dismissed, he will normally find that his sentence runs from the date of appeal and not from the date of sentence. That is the normal result because it is expressly provided in the Court of Criminal Appeal Act that it should be so. However, I gave a firm undertaking to the Committee earlier

today that if any Amendment which was reasonable was moved from the other side of the House I would accept it. I gave that undertaking firmly and I mean rigidly to adhere to it. Therefore, I am glad to accept the principle of this Amendment. I say the "principle," because we shall have to look at the corresponding case where the driving licence is suspended, and we shall have to try to introduce some similar machinery in regard to that. I am not sure about the drafting of this Amendment. We shall wish to frame the provision in line with that which we provide in the other matter. If the hon. Member will accept my assurance that we will adopt his Amendment in principle and put down the appropriate words in another place, I shall be glad to give that assurance, and I hope that the hon. Member will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of that assurance, I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This Clause must, in its context, surely be unique in the annals of our legislation. I could understand a person being deemed guilty of an offence which he had not in fact committed and which had not been proved against him if the court was left free to modify the penalty accordingly. I could understand there being a minimum penalty if we were sure that every person subjected to it had in fact been proved guilty of an offence. But in this Clause we find for the first time that a person who is only convicted because this Bill gives to the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt is subjected to an extremely heavy minimum penalty, indeed a universal penalty. I cannot really believe that it is essential to indulge in that kind of thing in order to protect this new system. Observe what happens. Premises are debarred from certain activities for 12 months. The result is that a greater part of the custom will leave the premises. That is the intention. In the case of premises of any magnitude a number of employees will become out of work. That, presumably, also is the intention, although they are not in the least guilty, but that is not a circumstance which the court is allowed to take


into account. I ask the Attorney-General, why cannot he trust the courts of this nation? Why cannot he give them a dispensing power?
Even in the case of the suspension of licences there is a dispensing power. It has been found in practice that that dispensing power is not wide enough to enable courts to do justice. I have myself encountered a number of cases where it was not, one would have thought, just or necessary to suspend the licence in circumstances where it had to be suspended because the rules called for it. The right hon. Gentleman spent a good part of the time in the earlier part of this sitting arguing that he must have power to convict a person who has not been proved guilty. He must be allowed to give the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion that is what Clauses 1 and 2 did. Let me accept his view for the purposes of this argument. A person who is convicted only by that means is to be subjected to this penalty as much as a deliberate offender against whom the deliberate intention to offend is proved up to the hilt. This so offends any conception of justice that I cannot see how even the present Government can defend it.

Mr. Turton: I wish to say one word as a magistrate. I have no wish to be kind to the black marketeer in any respect in regard to this offence but I think it is acting in an insulting way to courts of summary jurisdiction not to give them power in special cases to relieve from the harsh penalties which occur in this Clause. In many cases courts of summary jurisdiction have powers to find special reasons for withholding automatic penalties. I should have thought that that proviso ought to be in this Section. There will be cases where a garage proprietor, through some inadvertence, is culpable, although he has not any intention of black marketeering, but has not got his pumps properly earmarked. In that case he must be found guilty under paragraph (a). It will be extremely hard for the court, when they find him guilty, if they had no alternative but to put that man completely out of business for the whole of the 12 months. I do hope therefore that the Attorney-General will reconsider this matter.
There should be some loophole under which courts of summary jurisdiction can

treat this matter with the common sense they usually display. If the Attorney-General does not give way, the only result will be that in these cases the courts of summary jurisdiction will do their very best to find a man not guilty of the offence of which he is guilty.

9.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The question that arises on this Clause is whether a person convicted of black market offences should be subjected automatically to the special penalty which is here provided or whether the matter should be left entirely to the discretion of the court. That is, of course, a matter which, following upon the recommendation of the Russell Vick Committee, we have most anxiously considered. I cannot help feeling that the danger of leaving this matter to the discretion of the court is well illustrated by the apparent difference of opinion which exists as to the nature of these black market offences. Some people regard these offences as being morally wrong in themselves. I think one might include the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) in that category, because I think he compared these black market offences in regard to petrol with the offence of receiving stolen goods.
On the other hand, some people regard these offences as being merely things which are prohibited. I expect the noble Lord, the Member for Dorset, Southern (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), would say that it is another of that long list of things verboten, not to be publicly applauded perhaps, but if people can do them without being found out, well, good luck to them. I do not want to appear pompous or priggish about this matter, and I hope that what I say will not seem to be priggish; but if one recalls the incalculable harm, both political and economic, done on the Continent of Europe by black market offences, I think the Government are justified in asking all sections of the Committee to set their faces most sternly against any manifestation of offences of that kind in this country.
It is not really surprising that some people, including some magistrates, are inclined to take a lax and lenient view of black market offences when one can find a London daily newspaper saying, as one London newspaper did in its issue of 4th


May this year, these words about this particular Bill:
Petrol Drive Towards the Police State.
Mr. R. S. Hudson was fully justified in telling the House of Commons, yesterday, that the Motor Spirit (Regulation) Bill marked a step in the direction of the Police State. It provides savage punishments for actions not in themselves criminal. They are offences not against any moral law, but against the Government. Economic circumstances make it necessary to punish these offences, but it is characteristic of the ethical code of a Police State that they should be punished more harshly than others which transgress not only man-made law but Christian morality. Under this Bill it will be safer to steal than it is to use commercial petrol in a private car. It will be safer, even, to display gross physical cruelty against a harmless child.
I pause for a moment to observe that, if that were true, it would remain entirely irrelevant. It is, of course, entirely untrue. The penalty for larceny ranges from two years to 14 years imprisonment, and for cruelty to a child from two years to five years. If Justices impose lesser penalties—

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I did not use these arguments.

The Attorney-General: No; the right hon. Gentleman certainly did not use these arguments. I am sure that no one who gave consideration to the matter would use arguments of that kind. But it is unfortunate that articles of that kind appear in newspapers. The article went on to say:
Such incidents can be multiplied, but the grave injustice implicit in certain of the Bill's provisions will not be allowed to weigh against considerations of State expediency. That also is typical of the Police State.
The right hon. Gentleman certainly did not use those arguments. I am sure that when he read this, if indeed he did read it, he certainly did not glow with inward pride or swell with moral satisfaction at the commendation which was given to him in this most unfortunate article. It was published in a paper which has no particular importance—[HON. MEMBERS: "What name?"] It was published in the paper called the "Daily Graphic." No doubt that is an excellent paper in so far as it supports with servile sedulity the party to which the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset belongs. [Interruption.] It is encouraging to hear the noble Lord speaking about the side of the people. That is not a subject

about which hitherto the noble Lord knew anything. I must not allow myself to be diverted by the interjections of the noble Lord. It is possible that this kind of paper is read by the thoughtless sort of people who would be influenced by expressions of view of this kind. That is the danger of this kind of view about black market offences.
I hope that the whole Committee will agree with me when I say that it simply is not true to say that offences of this kind are offences against the Government except, indeed, in the sense that the Government is the embodiment of the State and represents the community. I suppose that one could say that treason or sedition were offences against the Government in that way, but good citizens regard treason, sedition and black market offences—offences of this sort—as thoroughly discreditable offences which violate the moral code which good citizens uphold, the moral code which is well expressed perhaps in the duty good citizens owe towards their neighbours.
It is because there are these two different views taken about black market offences that we thought it right, adopting the recommendation of the Russell Vick Report, supported as that recommendation was by the motoring associations representing those people most directly affected by this Bill, to provide that these special penalties should be automatic ones. The Russell Vick Committee, as is shown from their Report, heard a great deal of evidence about this, considered all the aspects of it, and considered that where a discretion was left to the justices in cases of this kind, undue laxity and leniency might be displayed. They found themselves forced to the conclusion that if effective measures were to be taken to suppress the black market in petrol, the only way was to deprive those who took part in it either of the use of the road, if they were motorists, or of the possibility of carrying on their business, if they were garage proprietors at that garage at which the offence had been committed.
We accept the conclusions of the Russell Vick Committee on this matter. After all, once a garage proprietor or—under the next Clause—a motorist is convicted of black marketing, there really is not much ethical ground, at all events, for discrimination between different cases and


for the imposition of a different penalty. The offence is the same. It is a grave offence, an offence against the community, and it is extremely difficult to see grounds on which a different penalty should be imposed in one case from that which is imposed in another.
Justices, sometimes possibly influenced by mischievous articles such as that to which I have referred, occasionally do strange things. The other day, there was the case in the Court of Criminal Appeal in which a bench of justices had refused to convict somebody whose name was Rosa because the name appeared as Rose on the charge sheet, and the Court of Criminal Appeal made some very strong animadversions on the conduct of the justices. We think this is a case where it should be made known that this is an automatic penalty, and that Parliament, in order to mark the gravity which it considers ought to be attached to black market offences has provided that this admittedly severe penalty will inevitably follow the commission of such offences. I am not able to take the view that this is not a perfectly proper course to adopt.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The learned Attorney-General says that to treat various concerns differently as regards penalties would be unfair. I submit that this Clause is much more unfair as it stands by purporting to afford uniform treatment, whereas the treatment would not be uniform at all. Let us take the case, for example, of a large multiple concern. As the Clause is drafted, and I do not see how it could be drafted otherwise, we are only going to stop a concern carrying on business at the premises where the offence was committed. It might well be, in the case of a large concern, that they could move their men, a great deal of their gear and their stocks, and might not suffer, in very marked degree, harm from that penalty, whereas the individual who has put all his savings and everything he has got into one or two pumps would be altogether precluded from earning a living for the large space of a year.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman, in his very understandable and very laudable desire to provide equality in these matters, will put down an Amendment providing that, with a large firm, all their garages should be closed

down for a year, I will give the matter urgent consideration.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is not the object, for exactly the reasons which the learned Attorney-General suggested, and he has really answered himself. He has pointed out that no Amendment could effect anything like fairness, and it is just for that reason that we oppose this Clause fundamentally. We think that this type of automatic penalty must necessarily lead to unfairness. The Attorney-General says that incalculable harm was being done by the black market. We agree, and we think it should be stopped in every possible way. Our complaint about this Clause and the Bill itself is that this is the wrong way to tackle the matter. We cannot put down the black market by purely repressive measures, any more than we can put down any other form of crime by purely repressive measures.
The whole gist of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is that public estimation of the crime is measured by the extent of the penalty awarded. I ask him to take his mind back to a Debate a week or two ago in this House. Is he suggesting that, as the result of the decision of this House, the seriousness of the crime of murder has been reduced owing to our decision altering the penalty? I do not believe for a moment that the country will wish to measure the seriousness of the black market by the amount of the penalties awarded for such offences. On the contrary, I think that, if we award automatic penalties, the only effect will be to arouse some sort of pseudo-hero worship. [Interruption.] The Committee is familiar with the stories of smuggling in the old days, but I will not pursue that illustration. If we award too great penalties for these grave offences, and we admit them to be that, we might stultify the whole purpose of the Bill, and it is because we believe that sincerely and firmly that we are opposed to this Clause.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I wish to add only two or three sentences. The tenor of the Attorney-General's speech is that he cannot trust the judiciary of this country, either the lay judiciary of England or the professional judiciary in Scotland. That can only be for one or two reasons; because


either the Bill so offends against justice that just men would not carry it out, or the judiciary are themselves untrustworthy persons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can take his choice.

We are against both theories and shall vote against the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 75.

Division No. 144.]
AYES.
[9.48 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pryde, D. J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gibbins, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gibson, C. W.
Rankin, J.


Attewell, H. C.
Gilzean, A.
Reeves, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Ayles, W. H.
Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood)
Rhodes, H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Grenfell, D. R.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Bacon, Miss A
Grey, C. F.
Robens, A.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Barstow, P. G
Guy, W. H.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Barton, C.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Royle, C.


Battley, J. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Sargood, R.


Bechervaise, A. E
Hardy, E. A.
Sharp, Granville


Benson, G.
Harrison, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St Helens)


Berry, H.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Beswick, F.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Binns, J.
Holman, P.
Simmons, C. J.


Blackburn, A R
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Skeffington, A. M.


Blyton, W. R.
House, G.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Bowen, R.
Hoy, J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Solley, L. J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Sparks, J. A


Brown, George (Belper)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Janner, B.
Stross, Dr. B.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jay, D. P. T.
Stubbs, A. E.


Burden, T. W.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Swingler, S.


Byers, Frank
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Jenkins, R H.
Symonds, A. L.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnel)


Cobb, F. A.
Key, C. W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Coldrick, W.
King, E. M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Collindridge, F.
Kinley, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Thurtle, Ernest


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Tiffany, S.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Titterington, M. F


Grossman, R. H. S
Lipson, D. L.
Tolley, L.


Daggar, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Turner-Samuels, M.


Daines, P.
Lyne, A. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McAdam, W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McLeavy, F.
Walkden, E.


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Diamond, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Dodds, N N
Morley, R.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Donovan, T.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E (Bradford, N.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Dumpleton, C. W
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Durbin, E. F. M
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Wigg, George


Edelman, M.
Oldfield, W. H.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Ewart, R.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wise, Major F. J.


Fairhurst, F
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Woodburn, A


Farthing, W. J.
Pearson, A.
Wyatt, W.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Peart, T. F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Follick, M.
Perrins, W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Foot, M. M.
Popplewell, E.



Freeman, J. (Watford)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Mr. Snow and


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Proctor, W. T.
Mr. George Wallace.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hollis, M. C
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Baldwin, A. E.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Bossom, A. C
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Pickthorn, K.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Lambert, Hon. G.
Prescott, Stanley


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Price-White, Lt-.Col. D


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Ramsay, Maj. S


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow
Low, A. R. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J S C (Hillhead)


Davidson, Viscountess
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Ropner, Col. L.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Drewe, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities).


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Sutcliffe, H.


Duthie, W. S.
MacLeod, J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Gage, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Gammans, L. D
Maude, J. C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Glyn, Sir R.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Moore, Lt.-Col Sir T
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.



Head, Brig, A. H.
Odey, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H
Mr. Studholme and




Major Conant.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Disqualifications and special Penalties in respect of offences by private motorists.)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move in page 4, line 29, to leave out from beginning, to end of line 4, on page 5, and to insert:
the court may order that for a period not exceeding twelve months no coupons for obtaining petrol for use in any private motor vehicle shall be issued to him and that during the period of disqualification no other person shall be entitled to the issue of such coupons for use in any private motor vehicle of which the person convicted was at the time of the commission of the offence the owner, unless such other person satisfies the Minister of Fuel and Power that he became the owner of the private motor vehicle by purchase and that the purchase thereof was a genuine and not a colourable transaction made with the object of evading the order of the court.
As the Committee will be aware, this is the Clause which provides certain additional automatic penalties upon the motorist who uses commercial petrol. The effect of our Amendment is to substitute a new and, in our opinion, a more just and more efficient method of effecting these penalties. We propose to leave out all the words laying down the automatic penalties and to insert in substitution the words of the Amendment. Their effect is to provide a new alternative method of dealing with this matter. It is, first, to be differentiated from that laid down in the Clause itself by the fact that, whereas the penalty in the Clause is automatic,

that which we put forward is in the discretion of the court.
I would repeat, in that connection, what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) on a previous question, that it is really impossible to discuss any penal statute unless we proceed in the beginning on the basis that the courts of law in this country can be trusted. Further to that argument—and I do not wish to weary the Committee on this side of the matter although it is one on which I and my hon. Friends feel very strongly—of the permissive as opposed to the automatic, we are dealing here with a very different type of person to that concerned previously. In general, we are dealing with the individual motorist, not with the person engaged in the sale of petrol as a business.
It is, therefore, much more important to have a power to differentiate, not only between different degrees of gravity in the offence but between different kinds of offenders. It is surely almost a platitude in modern criminology that the penalty should not only fit the crime, but should fit the criminal, and, after all, we are concerned with a wide range of possible offences from that of the insolent and arrogant black marketeer, who has been using a very large quantity of illicitly obtained petrol on the one hand, to another person who is, shall we say, a man in a small way of business, using his car for his business, struggling to


create a business, using a very small quantity of petrol in that connection, on the other hand. To the latter person disqualification means absolute ruin for himself, his wife and his family.
In our view, it is absolutely wrong to say that automatically both the big black marketeer and the small man who undoubtedly commits the offence, but in many mitigating circumstances—both relative to the offence and to his personality—should fall under the guillotine of this automatic disqualification. I do not want to stress that side of the matter—that argument has been so very well expressed by other hon. Members—because in our new proposals for an alternative we are dealing with the superior desirability of the permissive to the automatic penalty, and it also prescribes, in our view, a juster and more efficient penalty.
If hon. Members will look at the Clause as it stands, they will see that it provides for the personal disqualification of the driving licence of the driver and also, curiously enough, puts the car with which the offence was committed out of commission for 12 months unless it is sold before the conviction is actually recorded by the court. I am at a loss to see what is the purpose of putting the car out of action. It is almost like the medieval idea of punishing the chapel for the wrong that has been done. At a time, when as all Members know, many of our constituents are unable to obtain a motor car for essential purposes, putting one car completely out of use for 12 months is a very wasteful method of penalising the owner or driver if another and more efficient method of punishing him can be evolved.
It has this further disadvantage. It punishes the poor man, or the comparatively poor man, with one car, far more severely than it punishes the rich man with a number of cars, because as the Clause stands, although the rich man with a number of cars cannot himself drive any of the cars, he can be driven in another car by a chauffeur or anyone he hires for the purpose, whereas the poor man with one car has his only vehicle put off the road.
The Attorney-General, when dealing with the matter on the Second Reading, said this:

It is true, of course, that the immobilisation of the motor vehicle and the disqualification from holding a driving licence may operate more severely in some cases than in others. I think that it is perfectly true that it will operate more severely in the case of a man who drives his car for a living than in the case of a man who can employ a chauffeur or hire another car. Unfortunately, it has not been possible as yet to devise any penalty, except perhaps the death penalty, which does not fall more heavily on the poor man and his family than it does on the rich man."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1948; Vol. 450, c. 988.]
The Attorney-General is saying that the Clause as drafted falls more severely on the poor man than on the rich. One of the effects of accepting our Amendment would be to reduce, if not wholly to eliminate, that disparity. If hon. Members will look at the terms of the Amendment they will see that it is provided that no car owned by a person who commits this offence can be operated for 12 months. Under the Government's Clause the man with six cars who commits an offence with one of them can be driven by his chauffeur in any of the other five. If the Amendment is accepted, all those six cars cannot be used by that man. We do not follow the Government in their wasteful proposals to put the cars themselves out of action. As hon. Members will see we permit the cars to be used by other persons if there is a bona fide and genuine sale of them. Of course one has to insert that qualification to prevent evasion, otherwise it would be easy for someone to transfer the car to his wife or chauffeur and arrange to be driven by him. We prevent that possibility of evasion, but we say that where there is a genuine sale to some distinct person outside there is no reason at all why the car should be put off the road. There is, on the contrary, very good reason why every car that could be operated should be made available for use in these days.
Hon. Members will appreciate that the effect of the Amendment is not at any rate in the case of the rich man to reduce the penalty as compared with the Government's Clause; on the contrary in the case of the rich man the penalty which we would impose would be more severe than that imposed by the Government, but in the case of the small man the penalty would be less severe. On top of that, we submit to the Committee that it will also benefit the purpose which the Government have in mind in avoiding


the wasteful expedient of leaving a perfectly good car standing immobile and deteriorating for 12 months, at a time when there are thousands and tens of thousands of decent people in this country who cannot get a car for essential purposes in connection with their professions cm business.
I think that hon. Members will appreciate that we have not in this case confined ourselves simply to attacking the Government's proposals, unjust, inefficient and ill-drafted as we think them to be, but, on the contrary, we have, as well as seeking to eliminate them, put forward our own counter proposals which seem to us to have many advantages from every point of view. I hope that the Government will in the circumstances consider these proposals seriously. They are intended to be helpful; they are intended to eliminate the injustice of the Government's Clause; they are intended, nevertheless, to provide a very serious sanction for the type of person against whom everyone wants sanctions to be severe—the really determined, large-scale black marketeer. In those circumstances, I put the Amendment before the Committee.

The Attorney-General: This Amendment raises two issues. The first one, the question of principle, is whether the courts should have a discretion in relation to the imposition of these automatic penalties; and the second, the question of method, by which the penalties should be imposed. I do not propose to go over the ground that I covered while we were discussing the last Clause, but I must confess that the arguments which had been used from the opposite side of the Committee would have carried more conviction to me if they had not come from persons who had, only a few weeks ago, advocated the automatic, irrevocable and final penalty in regard to a crime which admits of so many varying degrees of culpability as that we discussed a few weeks ago.
When there are people and newspapers which are prepared to belittle and to minimise the gravity of these black market offences by such irresponsible and wicked arguments as in that newspaper article which I quoted when we were discussing this matter on Clause 4, we do think it right that Parliament should mark its own detestation of these offences

by itself providing an exact penalty which is to be imposed in respect of them. We do that, not because we have any distrust of the way in which, generally speaking, the courts will administer the law, but because in the cases of grave offences against the community it is right that the community itself should decide the penalty. We do not intend in this Bill to do anything to encourage those who commit black market offences to think that they may get away with them, and may be fortunate in a tribunal who will deal leniently with what they have done. I do not propose to say more on that aspect because we have already had a full discussion on it.
On the question of method, the Russell Vick Committee recommended depriving the vehicle, whether it had changed hands or not, of all petrol. That was the recommendation of the Committee, again after a great deal of discussion, after hearing evidence, and consulting the motor associations as to the best method of imposing this automatic penalty. It appeared to us from their recommendation that if the vehicle were licensed difficult administrative questions might arise in giving effect to the recommendation which the Committee had made. If the vehicle were licensed it would be entitled to be on the road and its owner might get hold of petrol from illicit sources. He might be the owner of several motor cars and be able to transfer some of the petrol he legitimately acquired for some of them to this car which he was not entitled to use, and we thought that it was better to achieve the same result as the Russell Vick Committee had in mind by suspending the Road Fund licence. Then, of course, any police constable who saw the car being driven, or any garage proprietor, would be able to see at a glance that no Road Fund licence was exhibited on the windscreen as it is required to be, and he would refrain from providing petrol for it. That was the method we thought the proper one.
The method proposed by this Amendment is open to a number of administrative difficulties. For instance, this dilemma confronts those who support the alternative method here proposed. No petrol is to be issued in respect of any car belonging to the convicted person. That might apply in the case of the wealthy owners of other cars. What is


to be done in the case of the business owner, the corporation, the partnership, the firm or company which perhaps owns many hundreds of vehicles? Are they all to be put out of commission because an offence has been committed? On the other hand, if only one vehicle is to be affected, the owner will have other coupons issued to him in respect of his other motor cars which he may be able to transfer to the offending vehicle unless the licence in respect of it is taken away. Under the method proposed by this Amendment, the convicted person would have no difficulty whatever in selling his motor car, in respect of which an offence had been committed, at a good price, buying another motor car in his wife's name, and then allowing himself to be driven in it respectfully saluting hon. Members opposite for the part they had played in converting this Bill into a "spivs Charter" and laughing at the law. There are many difficulties of that kind. Another one—and this is a very substantial one—is that, in the case where the car was transferred by the convicted person to some other person, it would be left to the discretion of the Minister whether to issue petrol coupons or not.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: Is it not a fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking for himself and his Rolls-Bentley? Why should he charge hon. Members on this side when he is speaking for his Rolls-Bentley.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member, as he is entitled to be called in the House, has made reference to my possession of a Rolls-Bentley. What has that to do with the merits of the matter which is now under discussion? If I did possess a Rolls-Bentley, what assistance is it to this Committee to use personal arguments of that kind in order to try and influence the debate? I am bound to say that I fail to appreciate the relevance of the point which the hon. Member permits himself to make. But if the hon. Member thinks it right to use personal arguments of that kind, which he has used on this occasion, and which seem to commend themselves occasionally to hon. Members opposite, I venture to suggest that, in the first instance at least, he should take the elementary trouble of trying to acquaint himself with the facts. I venture to suggest that before

hon. Members opposite try to make a personal attack upon Members on this side, attempting to challenge or question their sincerity, and attempting to suggest they are influenced by financial considerations, they should take elementary precautions, such as any gentleman would take, of making sure about their facts. It so happens that I do not and could not possibly own a Rolls-Bentley. I own an 8-horse power Ford, and also a Wolseley car. I wish I had a Rolls-Bentley, but even if I had—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Prescott: Is it not a fact that at one time the right hon. and learned Gentleman—

The Deputy-Chairman: I really must deprecate these personalities.

The Attorney-General: I would have thought that if the hon. Member had in fact been entitled to the title he receives by courtesy in this House, he would have apologised. At no time have I owned a Rolls-Bentley or anything approaching a Rolls-Bentley. I only wish I had. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I do not expect the hon. Member to withdraw. Who would expect a person like the hon. Member to withdraw?
10.15 p.m.
I come back to what is, I think, a relevant matter. I am sorry to have been led astray. I was dealing with the point that where the convicted person transferred his motor car to some third party, it is left to the discretion of the Minister to decide whether or not petrol coupons should be issued in respect of that car. That seems to me to be most undesirable.
Total deprivation of petrol is a serious matter and ought not to be dealt with purely as an administrative question by a Minister. It ought to be dealt with expressly, either, as hon. Members suggest, by a court, or by an Act of Parliament. I do not think it is at all desirable—and hon. Members opposite will, on reflection share my view, I am sure—that this very substantial power should be vested in the hands of an administrative department. For those reasons of method and of principle I regret that we are not able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hollis: I do not feel that the Attorney-General has dealt with the


most important point. It is not the province of legislation, but almost the province of comparative religion, and one of the fundamental marks of barbarism, when men begin to punish the instrument rather than the agent of a crime. The Attorney-General has not given any answer to the question why the punishment should be put upon the motor car rather than upon the person, and why, at a time when motor cars are extremely scarce, they should be kept off the roads. The Attorney-General said that there was nothing in the Amendment to prevent an offender from buying another vehicle in his wife's name; equally there is nothing in the Clause to prevent his doing so. The Attorney-General has failed to ex-

plain why a principle which is found in extreme degradation of barbarism, namely, punishment of the instrument rather than of the agent, is to be introduced for the first time into English law by the Clause, at a time of practical inconvenience when shortage of motor cars is enormously oppressive upon the community. Until he gives an answer to that question he has not supplied any serious reasons why the Amendment should be rejected.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'any' in line 30, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 88.

Division No. 145.]
AYES.
[10.19 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mikardo, Ian


Alpass, J. H.
Ewart, R
Mitchison, G. R.


Attewell, H. C.
Fairhurst, F.
Monslow, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Farthing, W. J.
Morley, R.


Awbery, S. S.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Ayles, W. H.
Follick, M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham E.)


Ayrton Could, Mrs. B
Foot, M. M.
Moyle, A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Freeman, J, (Watford)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Baird, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Barstow, P. G.
Gibbins, J.
Noel-Baksr, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Barton, C.
Gibson, C. W.
Oldfield, W. H.


Battley, J. R.
Gilzean, A.
Oliver, G. H.


Bechervaise, A. E
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)


Berry, H.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Pargiler, G. A.


Beswick, F.
Grenfell, D. R
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Binns, J.
Grey, C. F.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Blyton, W. R.
Guy, W. H.
Pearson, A.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Pearl, T. F.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Perrins, W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hardy, E. A
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Harrison, J.
Porter, G (Leeds)


Brawn, George (Belper)
Hastings, Dr, Somerville
Pritt, D. N.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Proctor, W. T.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pryde, D. J.


Burden T. W.
Holman, P.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Rankin, J.


Callaghan, James
House, G.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hoy, J.
Reeves, J.


Champion, A. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Cluse, W. S.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Cobb, F. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, A.


Coldrick, W.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Collindridge, F.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Comyns, Dr. L
Isaacs, Rt. Hon, G. A.
Royle, C.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Janner, B.
Sargood, R.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jay, D. P. T.
Sharp, Granville


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Daggar, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Daines, P.
Jenkins, R. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Deer, G.
King, E. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Snow, J. W.


Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.
Solley, L. J.


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sorensen, R. W.


Donovan, T.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Dumpleton, C. W
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Lyne, A. W.
Stamford, W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAdam, W.
Stross, Dr. B.


Edelman, M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stubbs, A. E.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, S.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G O




Symonds, A. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, L
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Vernon, Maj. W. F
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, J, L. (Kelvingrove)


Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)
Walkden, E.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Wise, Major F. J


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Woodburn, A


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wheatley, Rt Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)
Wyatt, W.


Thurtle, Ernest
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Tiffany, S.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Titterington, M. F
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.



Tolley, L.
Wigg, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Turner-Samuels, M
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Mr. Popplewell and




Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E
Head, Brig. A H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bossom, A. C
Hollis, M. C.
Prescott, Stanley


Bowen, R
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Price-White, Lt-.Col. D


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Howard, Hon. A.
Raikes, H. V.


Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J S. C. (Hillhead)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Ropner, Col. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Sanderson, Sir F


Byers, Frank
Lambert, Hon, G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G,
Smithers, Sir W.


Challen, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lipson, D. L.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, H. G.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Low, A. R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thomas, J. P. L, (Herelord)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon, O.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Davidson, Viscountess
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


De la Bère, R.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Turton, R. H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R E
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marsden, Capt. A,
Walker-Smith, D.


Duthie, W. S.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Erroll, F J.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gage, C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.



George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Odey, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn Sir R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H
Major Ramsay and


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Brigadier Mackeson.


Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in line 30, after "conviction," to insert:
the Court by which he is convicted may order that.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered at the same time the next four Amendments: In line 31, at end, insert "that"; in line 32, leave out "of," and insert "not exceeding"; in line 38, after "conviction," insert:
the Court by which he is convicted may order that";
in line 40, after "forfeit," insert "a sum not exceeding."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was about to suggest that we might perhaps adopt that course.
This Amendment raises in its most acute form the question whether the penalty should be automatic, as envisaged by this Clause, or whether the court

should have any discretion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that this is a laughing matter.

The Attorney-General: I am so sorry. I was not laughing at what the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Perhaps I might have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention. If he would give me his attention I would try to make my remarks as brief as possible and perhaps he would also try to avoid the unnecessary provocation in which he engaged just now. The point of this Amendment is to give the court a discretion rather than make these penalties automatic, and also to give the court a discretion as to the amount of the penalty. One has heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations on this point. It is a novel proposition to me that merely because an offence is grave the penalties should be automatic and the court should have no discretion.

10.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General: We have already discussed the question of automatic penalties in the Second Reading Debate not once, not twice, but three times in the course of our discussions in Committee. Having listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I find myself confirmed in my view that arguments do not gain in force, cogency, or even relevance by mere repetition. I shall not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman in canvassing the whole of this matter again, but I must remind the Committee that this Bill adopts the proposal of the Russell Vick Committee in this matter, a proposal which was supported by the motoring associations themselves. They take the view that automatic penalties of this kind are essential to the effective operation of this scheme for the suppression of the black market. This is what they said:
In recommending these penalties, we have the support of the Motor Agents' Association, representing garage proprietors, and the A.A. and the R.A.C. The latter bodies emphasise that if it can be demonstrated to motorists and garages that if there is a real chance of detection of an offence with commercial petrol and the penalty will be deprivation of petrol, they will very soon decide the risk is not worth taking.
We heard a great deal a few weeks ago about the salutary deterrent effect of another kind of automatic penalty. I am a little surprised that hon. Members opposite, who support that automatic penalty as being an essential deterrent, do not seem to think that this automatic penalty will have any deterrent effect. We think it will. We think the fact that it is an automatic penalty will make the motorist and garage proprietor, who may otherwise be minded to commit black market offences, think twice before they commit them. We think the penalty would operate before a case comes to the magistrates' court and its existence will result in a great many cases which might otherwise get there not getting there, because potential offenders will not commit the offences. So we propose to adhere to these automatic penalties.
But I had considered making one concession in regard to the matter, and that was the possibility that we might make provision in this Bill for application to be made to the court, after the lapse of a period of time, for the removal of the automatic disqualification. I do not want

to commit the Government finally to this course at this stage. As hon. Members will appreciate, in the absence of the Minister, it would not be proper for me to do so. We shall, however, give sympathetic consideration to the possibility in another place of including a Clause in the Bill that after the lapse of six months application may be made to the court, in special circumstances, so that the court may review the position. Subject to that, we think it essential for the effective operation of this Bill to make it clear to garage proprietors, and to motorists that if they are convicted of these grave offences these penalties will automatically follow.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I agree with the learned Attorney-General that there is no point in undue repetition of arguments with which the Committee is familiar, but the reason this argument is prolonged is that the Attorney-General has not answered some of the points put to him repeatedly. It is generally agreed that this Bill seeks to deal with serious offences. But they are not the only serious offences of which one can think. After all, we have had the criminal law in this country for a very long time, and it has not been thought a good thing to have automatic penalties about which the court has no discretion. That is the general rule. The right hon. and learned gentleman has constantly referred to a committee which sat on this matter, and to the approval of the A.A. and the R.A.C. The A.A. and the R.A.C. may be useful bodies, but it is open to doubt whether they are expert in the science of criminal law, and are the best people to advise the House of Commons, which took an interest in these things long before those bodies came into existence.
On a previous Amendment, the Home Secretary will be interested to know, the learned Attorney-General said that hon. Members of the Opposition must be wrong because, a little time ago, they took seriously the advice of the Home Secretary. While, in the learned Attorney-General's view, that may be prima facie evidence that the Opposition were wrong, does the principal Law Officer of the Crown think it is conclusive evidence of our stupidity? The learned Attorney-General makes much of the fact that the death penalty was automatic. But if I remember aright, the alternative to the


death penalty was likewise automatic. I am not going to develop that matter any further than the learned Attorney-General developed it: but I felt justified in dealing with arguments which were relevant when the learned Attorney-General was speaking and must, therefore, be equally relevant when hon. Members of the Opposition are speaking.
I should like to support very strongly what was said in a short speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). This extraordinary idea of punishing the instrument takes us back almost to the beginnings of barbaric law. It was suggested, I think rightly, by one of the commentators on the Government's present Measure, that the car might be driven through the streets with someone beating the tail lamp. No doubt in another place the Government will consider introducing an Amendment to make the Bill logically complete. But it is not very wise. The idea that you can show that an offence is serious only by having an automatic penalty carries no conviction to anyone acquainted with the administration of the criminal law, which has long shown that the courts, on the whole, should be left with some discretion.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has repeatedly, in the last two or three speeches he has made, quoted with great disapproval an article in a newspaper. I have not read that article, and all my knowledge of it is based on what the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out, but his answer on one point that was made by the newspaper seemed to be completely inaccurate. The newspaper pointed out that one was automatically made subject, for offences under this Bill, to a graver penalty than was necessarily inflicted for larceny or cruelty to children. He said that was untrue. I submit it is completely true. There is no automatic minimum penalty for larceny.

The Attorney-General: I know the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to make a thoroughly bad point, and I assure him that this is a thoroughly bad point. There was no reference to automatic penalties here at all. This mischievous, and as I said wicked, article said that it would be safer to steal than to use commercial petrol in a private

car, safer to display gross physical cruelty towards a helpless child. That was the argument. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman associates himself with it, but the right hon. Gentleman whose speech was referred to in this article immediately dissociated himself from the argument here used.

Mr. Strauss: I am obliged to the Attorney-General. I did not wish to make a bad point. In so far as that article said "It will be safer," I can see the point of his criticism, but if one made a slight alteration and said "It may be safer," then what the newspaper said would be true. I am not defending the article as a whole. We all have a great interest in our criminal law being respected, and from that point of view there is a real point in having some proportion between the penalties for various offences. Serious as the offences are under this Bill, for such offences as driving to the danger of the public, and many others, we have not thought it right to have automatic sentences. It is not in the general interest of the community that we should have automatic sentences to the extent that we have under this Measure. On what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said he might suggest in another place, I welcome the assurance he has given, but I think he should go further, and I very much deplore that we should have so many penalties here which are purely automatic, and which are defended not on the ground that they have been approved by this House, but because the new theory of criminal law has the approval of the R.A.C.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Turton: The only case made in favour of the automatic penalty is the claim that the Russell Vick Committee and the Motor Agents' Association are in support of it. If you read the Russell Vick Report carefully, you will find that there is not one mention of the word "automatic" penalty. They say the penalty should be severe; they never said "automatic." They have gone on the assumption that we in Parliament are going to carry out our usual procedure of trusting to the courts of justice, whether courts of summary jurisdiction or the High Court. I hope, for that reason, he will


withdraw that one praise he has made for the automatic penalty. In fact, he has made it twice. He has made it here and he says he is in favour of it because, I understand, the Home Secretary was in favour of capital punishment. There is no division in the House on the question that in the case of a black market offence there should be this disqualification laid down under this Clause. What is plain is that the courts of justice and the High Court should have discretion in certain cases to award a less severe penalty. It is highly improper that this modification

of the powers of the judiciary should be taken away by Parliament. One frequently gets borderline cases and it is a great pity when Parliament says that justice cannot be tempered with mercy in these cases. For these reasons, I hope the Attorney-General will think over the matter either here or in another place, and redraft the provision.

Question put: "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 204.

Division No. 146.
AYES
10.47 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Head, Brig. A. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hollis, M. C
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bossom, A. C.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Price-White, Lt-.Col. D


Bowen, R.
Howard, Hon. A
Raikes, H V


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C (Hillhead)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Robinson, Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Sanderson, Sir F.


Carson, E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Studholme, H. G


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Sutcliffe, H


De la Bère, R.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
MacLeod, J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Turton, R. H.


Duthie, W. S.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Vane, W. M. F.


Erroll, F, J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mellor, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gage, C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Odey, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Major Conant and


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Brigadier Mackeson




NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Farthing, W. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Coldrick, W.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Collindridge, F.
Foot, M. M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Comyns, Dr. L.
Freeman, J. (Watford)


Alpass, J. H
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Attewell, H. C.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Crawley, A.
Gibbins, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Grossman, R. H S.
Gibson, C. W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Daggar, G.
Gilzean, A.


Baird, J.
Daines, P.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Barstow, P. G.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Barton, C.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Grenfell, D. R


Bechervaise, A. E.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Grey, C. F.


Berry, H.
Deer, G.
Gunter, R. J.


Beswick, F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Guy, W. H.


Blackburn, A. R.
Diamond, J.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Blyton, W. R.
Dodds, N. N
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Donovan, T.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hardy, E. A.


Bramall, E. A.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Harrison, J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Brown, George (Belper)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
House, G.


Burden, T. W.
Evans,, John (Ogmore)
Hoy, J.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Callaghan, James
Ewart, R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Fairhurst, F.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)




Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pargiter, G. A.
Stubbs, A. E.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Swingler, S.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Sylvester, G. O.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.
Symonds, A. L.


Janner, B.
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jay, D. P. T.
Perrins, W.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Jeger, Dr, S. W (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Jenkins, R. H.
Price, M. Philips
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Pritt, D. N.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Proctor, W. T
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pryde, D. J.
Tiffany, S.


King, E. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Titterington, M. F


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rankin, J.
Tolley, L.


Kinley, J.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Reeves, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Usborne, Henry


Lipson, D. L.
Rhodes, H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Viant, S. P.


Lyne, A. W.
Robens, A.
Walkden, E.


McAdam, W
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McEntee, V. La T.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


McGhee, H. G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


McLeavy, F.
Royle, C.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sargood, R.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Sharp, Granville
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Mikardo, Ian
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mitchison, G. R
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Wigg, George


Monslow, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Morley, R.
Simmons, C. J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C)
Skeffington, A. M
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)
Skinnard, F. W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Moyle, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)
Snow, J. W.
Wise, Major F. J.


Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)
Solley, L. J.
Woodburn, A


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wyatt, W.


Oldfield, W. H.
Soskice, Sir Frank
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Oliver, G. H.
Sparks, J. A.



Paling Will T (Dewsbury)
Stamford, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Palmer, A. M. F.
Stross, Dr. B.
Mr Popplewell and




Mr. Richard Adams


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, to leave out "before," and to insert "after."
I think this Amendment can be taken with a similar Amendment in line 44. These Amendments are really put down to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he really means the words "before the conviction" in line 43 rather than the words "before the dismissal of the appeal." I have read this Clause through several times to try and understand it, but I cannot find the words "before the conviction" in this Clause at all; and therefore I cannot but feel that the intention really was, instead of "before the conviction," to have "after the conviction" and instead of "before the dismissal of the appeal," to have "after the dismissal of the appeal." I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that is clearly meant to be the case when he reads the preceding words of the same Subsection (8, c) on page 6:
… if the appeal is dismissed, this section shall have effect as if for the references to a period of 12 months after the conviction there were substituted references to a period of 12 months after the dismissal of the appeal.

I think that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does read through the Clause, he will find that the word "before" in the Clause should be "after."

The Attorney-General: I confess I was a little puzzled about this and it took me some time to find my way about it, but I think it is right in the way it is drafted in the Clause. Under Clause 5 (3, c) Road Fund licences are deemed to have been surrendered by the holder who has been convicted immediately before conviction. The point about that is that on conviction a licence becomes invalid, and it was felt that it could not be surrendered and be subject to a refund of the licence duty which had been paid. That provision having been made in Clause 5 (3, c), in order to bring the provisions of the Bill into line, where the disqualification has been suspended pending an appeal, the words "immediately before the dismissal of the appeal" were substituted. The provisions of Subsection (4, b) are re-enacted in the case of appeal by the provisions of Subsection (8, a). There is no need to adopt provisions which apply on conviction by a court of first instance because they do not apply again in the case of a hearing by the


Appellate Court, so I think the Clause is right as it stands, but I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it did require a little examination.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the Attorney-General has said and the explanation he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the Attorney-General has said about the possible pro vision of an application being made to the court for the removal of the suspension of the Road Fund licence, one can see how that can operate under Subsection (1, a), but it is not easy to see how it will operate under Subsection (1, b), and whether or not, in the case of the application being successful, the whole of the fine will be refunded to the person who has been fined. In regard to Subsection (1, b) which deals with the taking, by automatic deprivation, of half the value of the car, if it has been sold between the commission of the offence and the time of conviction, I ask the Attorney-General to consider whether there should not be inserted some provision, such as is inserted in the case of the Road Traffic Act, to the effect that notice should be served, because six months may elapse between the time of the commission of the offence and the serving of the summons. By the time the summons is served the individual may have forgotten altogether about being stopped by the police and a sample being taken. I suggest it would be helpful if some such provision could be inserted.
Finally, I should like the Attorney-General to look at the alternative suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), because if the court have discretion, his argument on administrative grounds really falls to the ground. The consequences of a car run by a big corporation being found with the wrong petrol would not be to take all the cars of the corporation off the road, because the court would have a discretion to make the punishment fit the crime. I ask him to take that into consideration, bearing in mind that the scheme avoids the harshness

and inequity which must result from Subsection (1, b).

The Attorney-General: So far as the last point is concerned, I am afraid we can hold out no hope that we shall change our view about whether the special penalties should be discretionary or automatic. We take the view that was adhered to in the discussion on the death penalty, both by those who advocated the death penalty, and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) pointed out, by those who advocated the alternative, that it was necessary in order to provide an adequate deterrent to have an automatic penalty. The more I have heard of the discussion on this particular provision, the more convinced I am it is absolutely essential, in the first instance, that the special penalty should be an automatic one. I want to make it clear that in taking that view we are adopting the view expressed by the Russell Vick Committee. If Members look at paragraphs 57 and 58, they will find it is implicit that the penalty has to be automatic. In paragraph 57, it is stated:
If it is known that the penalty will be deprivation of petrol, they will very soon decide that the risk is not worth taking—
and in the next paragraph—
and should thereby be deprived of all supplies of both types of petrol for a year.
There is no doubt about it—and the contrary view has never been suggested—the Committee took the view that an automatic penalty should follow commission of an offence. We will, as I have promised the Committee, however, go so far beyond the recommendation of the Russell Vick Committee as to consider whether it might be possible to provide for application to the court after a lapse of time.
The third point made by the right hon. Gentleman arises from my undertaking which I have just repeated to the Committee. Where the owner of a car after the discovery of red petrol in his tank, and before he has been prosecuted and convicted for the offence thereby constituted, but in the knowledge that prosecution will presumably follow from the discovery, sells his car, it may perhaps be thought that he has disqualified himself from the special relief which I contemplated we might provide in the case


where the owner remains in possession of the car but has his Road Fund licence suspended. However, I will consider that case in relation to what I think is the more important one where the owner still remains the owner of the car, and we will look at it and see whether we can make provision in another place. I take note of the suggestion for a time limit for prosecution.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Not a time limit for prosecution, but a time limit for giving notice of intended prosecution under the Road Traffic Act.

The Attorney-General: I am much obliged. I am even prepared to note with sympathy what the right hon. Gentleman now says, which is more far-reaching than what he said before.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Penalties.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 3, to leave out "or."
It would be convenient to the Committee, I think, to take this Amendment together with the next Amendment in page 7, line 5. These two Amendments are also associated with three Amendments to Clause 8, and I think I can hardly explain the meaning of these two unless I make some reference to the Amendments to Clause 8, in page 7, line 47; and in page 8, lines 8 and 10.
The object of these Amendments is to enable the enforcement officers appointed by the Minister to assist the police in the administration of this Bill, to have the right to enter and be protected with the police against the possibility of obstruction in the exercise of their duties. The two Amendments to Clause 6 provide for penalties for obstruction whether it is obstruction of the police or obstruction of the enforcement officers in the execution of their duties.
The Amendments to Clause 8 provide, firstly, that the enforcement officers should have the right of entry; secondly, that they should be entitled to take samples; and thirdly, there is added the offence of obstruction. Having explained the purpose of this series of Amendments, it only remains to add that under the existing law as applied by the Defence Regulations and the Control of Motor

Fuel Order, enforcement officers of the Ministry of Fuel and Power already have the power to enter premises other than private dwelling houses, and this Clause gives them no powers in relation to private dwelling houses. That being the position, and since they have already power to go into garages where offences might be detected, it seems illogical to deprive them of the right to investigate under this Bill when they can already investigate offences committed under the Control of Motor Fuel Order. It is the intention of the Minister—and I desire to make this quite clear to the Committee—that in general the burden of enforcement of this Bill should fall on the police; but although that is the general intention here, there seems to be no reason to exclude the assistance which the enforcement officers, with their great knowledge of the application of the Motor Fuel Order, may be able to offer. Moreover, the position would seem to be distinctly anomalous if one were to retain the right of entry possessed already under the Control of Motor Fuel Order, but did not extend it to this kind of offence.
Take, for instance, the enforcement officer—there will be only a comparatively small number of them—who goes to a garage in the course of his duties, perhaps to check petrol coupons with the supply that is held, or for some other matter arising under the Control of Motor Fuel Order, and finds that in one of the pumps, the contents of which he is measuring, as he is entitled to do, red petrol is present, instead of white petrol, as ought to be the case. What is he to do in such a case? Is he to fold his tent like the Arabs, and as silently steal away, and say nothing about it?—or is he to perform what one would have thought it would be the duty of the enforcement officer to do, and take a sample of the red petrol, and then submit the matter to the police, or, perhaps, to his Ministry, but, at all events, take appropriate steps in order that the matter may be brought to light?
It may well be—and this seems to us a very likely thing—that the investigation of the general administration of the Control of Motor Fuel Order by the enforcement officers may lead to the discovery of this kind of black market offence, and it does seem to us desirable, therefore, that the enforcement officers should not


be deprived under this Bill of the powers and functions which they already possess under the existing law in regard to the enforcement of the rationing system.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Attorney-General has not given any indication of the number of enforcement officers who will be entitled to act under this Clause if it is amended.

The Attorney-General: I did say the number would be small. It will be a maximum, I am instructed, of 80.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Now that the Minister of Fuel and Power is here, no doubt we can make quite certain that that information is accurate, and that that number will in no circumstances be increased. Of course, the number is important in viewing this proposal. I feel I should point out that the Government have not hesitated to discard the Russell Vick Report where the Russell Vick Report does not come up to their proposals. On page 20 of the Report, one finds the recommendation that the police should be given power to enter premises in order to take samples of petrol; but no recommendation at all is made that officials of the Ministry of Fuel and Power should be given that power.
Indeed, I must say I thought the case made out for this extension of power—as, indeed, it is—for people to go on other people's premises was very thin indeed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what an enforcement officer is to do if he incidentally comes across red petrol in a tank. I imagine he could do, with out this provision, much the same thing as any other civilian can do if he finds anyone apparently guilty of a criminal offence—report the matter to the police, and get them to take action. Bearing in mind that the Russell Vick Report recommended that the enforcement should rest with the police, I am surprised that at this stage the right hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to obtain increased power for the officers of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. What means of identification will there be to prevent a lot of unauthorised people pretending to be enforcement officers from going on to premises where petrol is stored, where they may be tempted to go in the present shortage in the hope of being able to acquire some illegally? I think this pro-

posal is really unnecessary. I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman saw fit to introduce it at this late stage.

Amendment agreed to.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, to leave out Subsection (3).
This Amendment is one which should appeal to the Attorney-General. He has been arguing with his habitual force through most of the afternoon and early evening for restricting the discretion of the courts. This Subsection which it is suggested should be left out is a Subsection which gives to the courts an unusual discretion. It provides, where the defendant is a body corporate, that there shall be no limit to the fine which the court can impose. That is a remarkable discretion to give to a court. I have not gone into the precedents in previous statutes, but I have no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to tell us where and in what particular circumstances that has been done before.
It is certainly curious that, where an individual is charged under this Clause, however wealthy he may be, there is a limit to the fine which can be imposed; and where the defendant is a body corporate, however poor, there is no limit. That is a very remarkable provision. It seems to me on principle to be an unsatisfactory one. There is also a certain practical inconvenience about it. Where the amount which can be imposed by way of fine is set out in a statute, that serves as a guide to the court in assessing a penalty. Obviously, in the case of a most serious matter, they might be tempted to give the maximum. Where it is of a medium degree, they might impose a fine of about half the maximum, and so on.
Under this Subsection the courts would be deprived of that guidance and are given no indication whatsoever of the intentions of Parliament in dealing with this matter. If the Subsection were left out, a body corporate would be dealt with in exactly the same way as other defendants—the fines would be the same as those set out in the Bill. That seems a more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter than to single out bodies corporate and expose them to unlimited fines. If there was any force in the learned Attorney-


General's arguments on previous Amendments that courts require the strong guidance of Parliament as to what they should do, that argument has its greatest possible validity in connection with this matter. I find it a little difficult to understand why the penalty in this case should be unlimited.

The Attorney-General: I always find myself in danger of being seduced from the path of rectitude by the attractive arguments of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) but really there is nothing at all novel in this provision. I do not need to refer to statutes, though there are statutes about it. It is a fact in common law that there is no limit to the fine which may be imposed in the case of misdemeanours.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for precedents in statutes passed by this House. They are the only precedents material in dealing with the Bill.

The Attorney-General: I was pointing out that the common law provides no limit, apart from the limit imposed by Magna Carta, that a penalty may not be excessive or unreasonable. There is no limit to the fines which may be imposed in common law for any misdemeanour. When one comes to statutes, there is a number of modern statutes, some of them passed in the last Parliament and some passed in this Parliament. For instance, the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941. There are, of course, statutes dealing to some extent with the kind of problem with which we have to deal here—the problem of securing fair shares for all. There are also the Statistics of Industry Act, the Cotton Control Act, the Exchange Control Act, 1947, and, of course, Defence Regulation 92 (2). All of these provided, in the case of corporations, for fines of unlimited amounts. That being so, we thought it right in this case to have the same provision. But perhaps I should add that fines of unlimited amount can be imposed only upon conviction on indictment; clearly, only the most serious offences will be proceeded against in that way. In the ordinary cases which come before the justices there will be a limit on fines, and one can feel confident that fines much larger than those

contemplated will only be imposed in cases which are regarded as being so serious as to merit such procedure.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 7, line 41, at the end, to add:
For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby provided that where the body corporate was created by or under such Public Act of Parlia word director shall be construed as including any member of a board, executive or commission created by any Public Act of Parliament, the ment.
This is an important Amendment, and I should say at the outset that any apparent confusion was due to the fact that I did not expect to be entrusted with so important a matter. The point of this Amendment is, of course, to make it clear that what is sauce for the private goose shall be sauce for the public gander. The various national bodies which control nationalised industries are, of course, bodies corporate. Therefore, on a first reading of the Clause, it would appear that they are already covered by it. But the question arises—and this is a matter upon which I think the Committee would appreciate the guidance of the Learned Attorney-General—whether the members of the boards of a nationalised industry are or are not to be treated as -directors for the purposes of this Clause. They are not, from many points of view, directors. Their position is a special one, and their appointments are in most, if not all, cases, created by a specific allusion in the Act of Parliament by which the industry was nationalised.
Putting the matter at its lowest, there would appear to be some doubt whether the stringent penal provisions which in this Clause are applied to directors are also applicable, as the Bill stands, to the members of these boards—central and divisional—of the nationalised industries. If they are not covered by this provision, it would seem to be quite wrong. There can be no valid reason for making, say, the directors of a vast private organisation such as Messrs. Unilever, criminally liable for the acts of that company if, at the same time, a member of the Transport Commission is not responsible for exactly similar offences committed in an exactly similar way by employees of the Commission.
So far as I am concerned, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can assure


the Committee that members of the boards of nationalised industries are for this purpose considered to be directors, and if therefore they are responsible for the offences committed by the servants of those industries in exactly the same way as directors of companies are liable for offences committed by the servants of those companies, then I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment. If that assurance cannot be given, then a matter of considerable importance arises.
There is the point to which I have invited attention as to the strictly comparable position of the members of these boards with members of the bigger private companies. But there is also the wider question whether it is intended to differentiate between nationalised industries and private industry on this question. If it is, it is going to make a great breach, not only in the effectiveness of this Measure, but in the tradition of this country that trading bodies should be treated as being equal before the law with individuals and with other trading bodies. That is a matter that would give rise to constitutional implications of the greatest importance. But as the whole discussion of this matter must depend in the first place on the advice which the Attorney-General is able to give the Committee, I do not wish to delay discussion at this stage. If he can give the assurance I am hoping, the matter will not have to go very much further. If he cannot, I have no doubt my hon. and right hon. Friends will desire to press him further.

The Attorney-General: The Clause as drafted covers not only directors but other similar officers. I have no doubt that it is sufficiently wide to embrace the members of these statutory corporations; but as I indicated at the beginning of our discussions that I was prepared instantly to accept any Amendment from the Opposition which was reasonable, or at all events that its principle was reasonable, I am bound to say that I think the principle underlying this Amendment is reasonable, and I undertake to accept it in accordance with the undertaking I gave, and to see that the Clause is looked at in order to make it quite clear in another place that such members of the statutory corporations are embraced within its provisions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I very much appreciate the attitude the Attorney-General has taken. He has undertaken, as I understand it, to see to it, if it be not already the case, that members both of central and divisional boards of nationalised industries shall have this liability imposed on them. Taking by way of example the Coal Board, that would cover the National Coal Board and the divisional boards. I am assuming I am right, and I understand that he accepts that?

The Attorney-General: I shall look at that, but I shall seek to put members of the statutory bodies in exactly the same position as they would be if the boards were ordinary companies. Whether that would apply to the divisional boards is a matter I should have to look at. I am not going to impose a higher degree of liability on members of these boards, but the same liability.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that is satisfactory. Nobody would press for a higher degree of liability. In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

11.30 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I wanted to ask a more general question following the point raised by my hon. Friend. Where we have a very large undertaking, a nationalised body, or it may be a large company, one may find an intermediate degree of responsibility. As I read the Clause, I think the criminal responsibility merely touches those who hold office at the top tiers, only general managers, directors and secretaries of the actual governing body of the concern. It may be that responsibility rests somewhere in between, some branch manager or possibly the director of a small office at a lower level. I would like to have a statement from the Government whether it is intended that these Clauses should attach any criminal liability in such cases. Then another small point arises. The words used in Subsection (4)
… exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of


his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances.…
have appeared elsewhere in the Bill and have been amended, or there has been an undertaking that they will be amended. Some of those words seem to be desirable in those conditions; on the other hand, the other words are inappropriate. There should be some amendment of these two lines so as to bring them into line with what has been provided for elsewhere in the Bill. I do not suppose that the Government are willing to suggest an Amendment here and now to give effect to that, but I would be glad to hear that they will consider whether action is needed.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Baronet the Member for South Hendon (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth) has raised two short points. The answer to the first is that those who are ultimately responsible for the control of a corporation will be liable, under the Clause as drafted, subject to the defence for which provision is there made. Subordinate officers at lower tiers may be liable also for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, but the liability imposed under this Clause is a liability on those who are ultimately responsible for the control of the company.
I will look at the words in Subsection (4) with regard to defence. We will have to look at them again in the light of the Amendments moved to earlier Clauses but also in the light of other statutory provisions regarding the criminal liability of directors in cases like these. We will look at them and make any necessary Amendments to bring the Clause into line with the rest of the Bill.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Institution of proceedings.)

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move in page 7, line 44, to leave out from "of," to the end of the line.
Clause 7 as it stands allows prosecutions in England and Wales by a constable by or with the consent of the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Director of Public Prosecutions. The purpose of this Amendment is to leave out the Minister of Fuel and Power. The Committee will

see that the limitation is to England and Wales because in Scotland the Lord Advocate is in command of all prosecutions and that seems to me to be a concession which might well be imitated in England to a greater extent than it is. This amendment takes on an additional importance by reason of the fact that the Minister proposes, in the next Clause, to empower his enforcement officers to go into premises and take samples, and so on, and accordingly, if you have the position that the Minister's enforcement officers can go in and collect the evidence and the Minister can authorise the prosecution, then the ordinary forces of the law never come into the matter at all.
I can see a possible case of the Minister authorising a prosecution when the investigation has been made by the police, though I should have thought that in most cases that would be unnecessary, and I can see a possible case of the Minister's minions collecting the evidence providing that someone else decides that the prosecution is to take place. In matters of this seriousness which might result in a man's livelihood being stopped for a year and the gravest possible inconvenience being cause, not to speak of loss, surely it is inconceivable that the Minister should have the whole thing in his hands from beginning to end without obligation to refer to any legal officers at any stage?
I would not have pressed the Amendment very strongly had not the next Amendment been put on the Order Paper. The effect of that Amendment on the Paper makes this Amendment all the more important, and I hope that the Attorney-General will accept this Amendment or give some assurance that in those circumstances there will not be left in the hands of the Ministry such power that they will both collect the evidence and conduct the prosecution.

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman boggled at the provision that prosecutions may be instituted by, for instance, a village constable. One finds it a little surprising in those circumstances that he should think there is any danger in a Minister of the Crown responsible to this House having the power to initiate prosecutions. We are unable to accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, but I


should like to say that there is no doubt that the main burden of prosecutions will fall upon the police. That is the intention and it is not contemplated for a moment that the Ministry will undertake them. On the other hand, under the existing Defence Regulations—those relating to the control of motor fuel—the Minister already has the rower to prosecute, and it really would be a most anomalous position that, although he had the power to prosecute and was in fact instituting prosecutions in connection with certain offences under the control of motor fuel, he had no authority at the same time, in respect of the same defendant and using perhaps exactly the same motor vehicle, to institute a prosecution for offences under this Bill.
It did not seem to us that there was any reason for excluding from the Minister the power he already possesses under the Defence Regulations and which is vested in many other Ministers in regard to breaches of the law of a comparable kind to this. Actually, the Minister, while he does not intend to take over the main burden of prosecutions, does hope in the early stages of the administration of this Act to keep in close touch with the police so that he may be able to give advice and ensure some consistency of policy in the administration of this Act over the whole of the country. I venture to think that the Committee will feel that that is a useful course for the Minister to pursue and that it will avoid prosecutions being taken in cases of a completely trivial kind where it would be inadvisable to proceed at all, and it will ensure prosecutions in a uniform way. I hope that in the light of the explanation, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that it is not necessary to press this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Power of entry and taking of samples.)

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 7, line 46, after "constable," to insert "in uniform."
The Clause we now come to is the one which gives power of entry by constables to commercial premises, to enable them to take samples and otherwise to proceed to the enforcement of the Bill. The Clause, as drawn, is silent as to whether the constable must be in uniform or not and we have some apprehension on this

side lest a constable may enter premises in plain clothes. If that is the intention, unless we can have some very good reason for such power, we shall oppose it.
I do not think I can labour this point until we hear what the Government have to say, but quite clearly the private rights of citizens of this country tend to be winnowed away—a tendency which is going on rather fast at the present time—and clearly it is of some importance, quite apart from the particular merits of this Bill, that private individuals should not be constantly the recipients of the attentions of snoopers and others. I must admit that I can see no reason whatever for taking powers for constables in plain clothes to go into premises in order to enforce this Bill. It seems to me that if a constable in plain clothes can do it, a constable in uniform can do it equally well. I can imagine no reason whatever for giving powers to plain-clothes snoopers to go trespassing and looking into the private affairs of the community. We feel strongly on this subject. I hope very much that the Government will be able either to accept the Amendment as it stands or, at any rate, to give assurances which will allay all the fears on this side.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid we are not able to accept this Amendment. People who are minded to commit black market offences do not normally do so when they hear the heavy regulation boots and see the distinctive blue uniform of the constable approaching. It seems to us quite essential to the detection of the black market, as indeed to other offences, that the ordinary detective force of the constabulary should be utilised. There seems to be no reason to exclude from the administration of this part of the criminal law the services of the force who have proved invaluable in the detection and prevention of all manner of other crimes.
Police constables armed with warrants have effected searches of premises, and those whose premises are searched are, of course, entitled, whether the officer is in uniform or not, to demand the production of his warrant card. So here, if the plain clothes or uniformed officer seeks to search premises for the administration of this Bill, the garage proprietor, the hotel keeper or whoever it may be, will be entitled first to demand the production of the officer's warrant card. In


the case of the enforcement officer, the authority is signed by the Minister appointing him. That seems an ample safeguard against the risk that anyone may snoop or trespass when he has no right so to do. I might add, although I have never hitherto had personal experience of this matter, that many people who have to have their premises searched prefer that the search should be conducted by a person in plain clothes, who does not advertise to the neighbours the fact that the search is being conducted by the police.

11.45 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not altogether satisfied by what the Attorney-General has said. It appears to me that if a person has something to hide, he is not likely to welcome anyone coming in to take samples and otherwise look into his private affairs, whether the unwelcome visitor is in heavy boots or plain clothes, or whether the gentleman produces a police warrant or a duly authenticated document. I cannot see the purpose of retaining powers to allow individuals in plain clothes to enter premises of the public. I can see the intention the Government may have in mind is that in certain cases a police officer will be able to get into premises unchallenged and do his work unknown to the owner of the premises. It might be on occasions that that would produce useful results, but it seems to me to offend against all those principles which both sides have always held dear in this country. We hold the view that a man should be protected from an invasion by people who pass themselves off as friendly visitors. I appreciate that there may be cases where these visitors would be more welcome if they did not appear to bring the weight of the law behind them, but if the person were guilty it would not matter. In the circumstances, I feel that we should not press the Amendment, but should register our protest against this additional case of snooping.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 47, after "superintendent," to insert:
and any person authorised by the Minister of Fuel and Power.
This Amendment can be taken together with the Amendment, in page 8, line 8, after "may," to insert:

and any person authorised by the Minister of Fuel and Power as aforesaid, on producing, if so required, a duly authenticated document showing his authority, may.
These are the Amendments I referred to in moving the Amendment to Clause 6, giving powers to enforcement officers appointed by the Minister. The Committee will not want me to repeat the arguments I used on that occasion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Attorney-General moved this Amendment with disarming brevity and innocence, but I am not sure that it deserves brevity or claims innocence. On the previous Amendment, reference was made to snooping in relation to police officers. I did not think there was a great deal of force in those arguments, but this is a totally different matter. Under this Amendment, the Minister can authorise any person to enter premises. He can authorise not only his regular enforcement officers, which is no doubt the intention, but is given the power to authorise any persons whatsoever. Surely that is using powers to permit the possibility of snooping on a very large scale indeed. The right of entry into private premises is one which surely the Committee should seek to protect as far as possible, and while it is right to give to the police the necessary power to enter and enforce the law, it is quite a different matter when giving authority to any person whom a Minister of the Crown may authorise. I am somewhat alarmed at this proposal. I do not think that it is necessary. I have heard nothing from the Attorney-General to convince me that this could not be done by the police, or why it should be necessary now to take powers to authorise large-scale entries by large numbers of people, for that is the power which is granted, whatever the intention. I do not think we ought to accept the Amendment without further information as to its necessity.
I heard the advance explanation of the Attorney-General when he was speaking on Clause 6, but he did not give the Committee any reason to believe that the entering of premises for this purpose, or for the inspection of vehicles, was beyond the capacity of the ordinary police, or that there was any necessity whatsoever to grant this power. I do not know whether it is the intention that these enforcement officers should be accompanied by police officers, or entitled to operate wholly


independent of the police. I think that is also a matter on which the Committee should be informed. While one does not wish to deprive the Minister of Fuel and Power, or the police authorities, of any power for the proper enforcement of the provisions of this Bill, it is quite another matter to give them a blank cheque without any necessity for it being established.

The Attorney-General: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) must have been absent during the time when we discussed this matter earlier. If he was I congratulate and envy him. If he was not absent at dinner, he cannot have been paying much attention to the arguments. I pointed out then that enforcement officers already have the power under the existing Control of Motor Fuel Order to enter premises. It might often be that, in the course of investigating the commission of offences under the existing law and in the general administration of the existing control system, offences under this Act will be detected. It really would be anomalous—and I venture to say that I would not be using the language of extravagance if I said that it would be grotesque and absurd—if an enforcement officer entitled to enter a garage in the administration of the existing law to examine the petrol pumps was not entitled, when he found that that petrol was red, to take, for instance, a sample in order that the matter might be further investigated with a view to prosecution under this Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The provisions of this Amendment authorises these people not only to take a sample when otherwise legitimately on the premises, but gives them a new power to enter. Surely, that is so? If so, it does not cover the case the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind of people legitimately on the premises.

The Attorney-General: I am not at all certain about that. Although the enforcement officer might be legitimately on the premises, he might not be entitled to take a sample unless he had the right under this Bill to be on the premises. That is a matter which gives rise to interesting legal considerations. I say I am not sure about it because I should not be able to accept it without argument from the hon.

Member in the way he put it just now. But, of course, there are many other cases which one can readily suggest. Consider, for instance, the case where an enforcement officer is outside a garage in the course of the administration of existing powers under the existing law, and finds, from what he sees outside the garage, some reason to suspect that inside is a motorcar which has just been filled with red petrol.
Is he not to be entitled to follow that motorcar into the garage to take a sample from the tank? Is he to bicycle away to try to find, if he can, some police officer who can be detached from his other duties to go back to the garage in the hope that, by that time, the motorcar will not have departed? I venture to think the Committee will consider that any such limitation of the powers of these officers would be absurd, and would not be conducive to that suppression of black market activities which, I am sure, all Members of the Committee desire to suppress. I really cannot take the view that this power ought not to be extended to the enforcement officers—80 of them, as I mentioned earlier in the Debate—in the way proposed by these Amendments.

Mr. Howard: Because I have listened to this Debate, and because I have been very worried by some of the arguments that have been advanced, I want to ask the Minister of Fuel and Power one question. He may be able to give an answer that will be satisfactory enough to allay some of the worries that laymen have, although lawyers may remain unsatisfied. Will the Minister give an undertaking to this Committee that he will instruct his enforcement officers, and anyone else whom he may authorise to enter premises, to state that they are enforcement officers or duly authorised persons, and to produce their authorisation there and then? If he would do that he would remove to a certain extent the fear of abuse of snooping powers.

Mr. Gaitskell: Since the hon. Member asks for an assurance from me, I feel I should reply. I fancy, but I am not absolutely certain, that the instructions that enforcement officers already have are precisely to that effect. I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is, of course, desirable that when either enforcement


officers or police officers enter premises they should disclose their right to be there, and I shall certainly take note of that point.

Mr. Howard: May I press that a little further? Instead of taking note, will the Minister be prepared to answer my question? Will he, instead of taking note, give an undertaking which even a layman can understand?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I do feel that some more elucidation is required. The Attorney-General made one of his soothing speeches, which he makes more commonly now that he has become more mature in Parliamentary experience, instead of one of the sort he formerly made, when he was new here, about "We are the masters now." I would ask him to consider the difficulties there would be in such a situation as this. Suppose a motor car were left locked in a garage by the owner. The Amendment says that any person authorised by the Minister can enter premises and take samples. What, in fact, would be the situation? Is it the case that any person authorised by the Minister of Fuel and Power—who is now happily released, I gather, from his activities upstairs; who is now with us, though temporarily, perhaps—can enter the garage and unlock the car and take a sample? Has the Gestapo reached that stage? May we have an answer? It is rather important.

The Chairman: That is a point which may arise on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. I do not think it arises on the present Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 8, after "may," insert:
and any person authorised by the Minister of Fuel and Power as aforesaid, on producing, if so required, a duly authenticated document showing his authority, may."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]

12 m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, at the end, to add:
and shall if possible take the samples in the presence of the occupier of the premises or of a person in his employ or when the sample is taken from a motor vehicle, in the presence of the owner of the vehicle or person in charge thereof.

If the sample is not taken in the presence of any such person, the constable who has taken the sample shall forthwith inform the occupier of the premises or the person in charge of the vehicle or the owner thereof, that he has taken the sample, and at the time of giving such information or at the time of taking the sample in the presence of any such person, he shall then and there divide it into three parts, each part to be marked and sealed or fastened up and shall if required so to do, deliver one part to the occupier of the premises or a person in his employ or to the owner of the motor vehicle or the person in charge thereof, as the case may be, retain one part for further comparison, and if he thinks fit, submit one part to an authorised analyst.
This Amendment raises a point of considerable substance. Under Subsection (2), provision is made for taking samples. I do not think anyone objects to that, but it is desirable, in my opinion, that where samples are taken, samples should be broken up into three and one part handed to the person in charge of the vehicle or petrol pump, one part kept by the person taking the sample, and the third kept for future comparison. This is the normal procedure under the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and so far as I can see there is no reason at all why it should not be used in this case. If adopted, it may be a safeguard against the conviction of persons who are innocent by reason of the muddling up of samples, which may happen. A policeman at a car park taking a number of samples may accidentally put the wrong number on one sample.
The Amendment as drafted does not provide that the sample must be given to the owner of the car or the person in charge or the owner of the pump, but provides that the sample, if not taken in the presence of one of these people, should be split and the part handed to the person concerned at the earliest possible opportunity. I suggest that this is reasonable and would give a greater sense of fairness. In the case of petrol, we should follow the example created by the Food and Drugs Act.

The Attorney-General: I think the Committee will agree that I have adhered faithfully to my undertaking to accept any Amendment proposed from the opposite side which was reasonable. Hon. Members have only to propose reasonable Amendments and they will be accepted at once without any discussion. I shall accept the principle of this Amendment. I venture to think that, as drafted, it is


in one or two respects defective. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept my undertaking and withdraw the Amendment, we need not discuss it further. In regard to the drafting of this Clause, I should say that we have in mind some slight departure from the procedure under the Food and Drugs Act. We would propose only two samples and not keep the third sample, which in these days is hardly ever used. But, in substance, we accept the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope the day will come when I succeed in drafting a lengthy Amendment which is not only accepted by the Government but accepted in the way in which it is drafted. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and accept the assurance he has given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, at the end, to add:
(3) Any person who obstructs any person exercising powers under this section shall be guilty of an offence.
This Amendment is one of those I referred to in more detail when we were discussing the series of Amendments introduced by the two Amendments to Clause 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: You were kind enough to indicate, Major Milner, that the remarks I made on a previous Amendment would be in order on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. May I now repeat my query, either to the Minister or to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General: whether any person authorised by the Minister would be in order in entering a garage and dealing with a car which has been left locked? I think it was the learned Attorney-General who said that the minions of the law might be protected by uniform. I think he even went to the length of describing flat-footed officers, camouflaged—as was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when I met him in the Central Hall, dressed in a different garb earlier in the evening, His camouflage was even more effective than theirs might

be. But what I want to ask is whether it would be in Order for these men to break the locks of a garage for the purpose of getting in.

The Attorney-General: The answer is, "no."

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 36, to leave out "reference," and to insert "references."
There are five Amendments to this Clause, and I think it would be convenient to the Committee if they were taken together. The Amendments are necessary to complete the application of the Clause in respect of Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 36, after "to," insert "England and Wales and to."

In line 37, leave out "a reference" and insert "references to Northern Ireland and."

In line 38, at end, insert "respectively."

In line 45, at end, add:
and the reference in that section to the Roads Act, 1920, shall be construed as a reference to that Act as it applies in Northern Ireland."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major-Milner): There is only one Amendment, and that is in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I regret to say that Mr. Speaker has not selected it.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would it be possible for you, Sir, to say why the Amendment has not been selected?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not usual for Mr. Speaker to give his reasons for not selecting an Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Attorney-General.]

12.10 a.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: We have had a long discussion in Committee, and I do not propose to speak at any length on the Third Reading, except to say this. It is true that the Government have accepted a number of Amendments that we put forward, and we think—and presumably they agree—that these Amendments have improved the Bill. On the other hand, there are a number of Amendments which they have refused to accept, and as of course they were perfectly entitled to do. We on this side believe that the black market should be suppressed. There is no difference between the two sides of the House on that matter. Where we differ is that we believe some of the provisions of this Bill may result in creating hardship in cases in which it is possible that the man concerned is innocent, and we shall maintain that point of view as long as we can. In addition to that, we believe that the remarks of the Attorney-General in the Debate fully reinforce the arguments we put forward on the Second Reading, and we believe that this Bill still remains as we described it then, essentially the product of people who have a police State mentality.

12.12 a.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Before we part with the Bill, I would like to make one suggestion, which concerns the ingredients to be prescribed for distinguishing commercial petrol. On these ingredients depends the effectiveness or otherwise of this Measure. In addition to the colouring matter and the chemical matter, may I suggest that consideration be given to adding something that would give off a bad odour. That would have the double advantage of making detection more easy and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is nothing about odour in the Bill.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: With great respect, the Bill starts off by requiring ingredients to be prescribed. I am only suggesting that, if the Government were to prescribe an ingredient which would give off a bad odour, it would make detection more easy and be more in consonance with the spirit of this Bill.

12.13 a.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: The part of this Bill which I dislike most is Clause 3, in which are grouped together offences which may be committed accidentally and those which, if committed at all, would obviously have been committed deliberately. I drew the attention of the Attorney-General to that in Committee, and I hope that in another place it may be possible for something to be done to make it more equitable in the cases of those who have committed offences accidentally under Subsection (1, a and b). This is one of those Bills which in any democratic country raises that awkward point that there are certain offences which need the methods of tyranny to put them down. There is only one way of obviating the need for this Bill, and that is for the supply of petrol to be sufficient. But I think this Bill will forever be damned for the reason that the onus of proof is placed on the offender to prove his innocence. I maintain that that is contrary to our traditions in this country, and I hope it will be very much the exception to the rule in any other legislation brought in by this Government.

WAYS AND MEANS [5th May]

Resolution reported:

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1939, the salary or pension of a Member from which deductions are to be made under the said Act of 1939, as amended by the first-mentioned Act, shall not be treated for any of the purposes of the Income Tax Acts as reduced by reason of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the amount of the said deductions, and a Member shall not be entitled to any allowance, deduction or relief under any provision of the Income Tax Acts by reason of such increase and his income shall not be regarded as thereby diminished."

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL

Considered in Committee.

(Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair)

CLAUSE 1.—(Payments to widowers of past Members.)

Motion made, and Question proposed: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.16 a.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney-Braithwaite: I notice Mr. Beaumont, that you have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Oldfield): In page 1, line 8, after the second "the", insert "widows or". Perhaps one may, on the question that the Clause stand part, repeat the argument made in the report of this Committee which dealt with this important question.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gorton has not been selected, but it can be discussed later on the new Clause standing in the name of the Leader of the House.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Report by Government Actuary.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: I have an Amendment down to leave out this Clause, and it is linked with the new Clause which I have down—[Cessation of reports by Government Actuary]. On the Second Reading I pointed out that I thought the Government Actuary could not possibly give a report worth anything. We have to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in our investments. I thought then that the Actuary's report was unnecessary. Now I feel it is more than ever wholly unnecessary because the new Clause in the name of the Leader of the House, which makes contributions and pensions variable, means that however good the report may be and however complete and accurate, it is no earthly use

to anyone. All of us who are trustees have put our names to the Amendment to leave out the Clause, and I trust that it will be omitted.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I hope the Committee will not agree to the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is perfectly true that we are going to make certain changes under the new Clause in the name of the Lord President of the Council. In my submission the fact that the Committee may agree to these changes makes it all the more desirable that we should have an expert view on these matters.

Sir C. MacAndrew: On what matters?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On the pension, the rate of contribution, and the extent to which, in the light of experience, a reserve should be built up. I would remind the Committee that we are working rather in the dark. When actuaries are called in on funds of this kind, they normally make use of well-established tables relating to the classes of persons who will join the fund in question. They can tell from these tables what the rate of attrition is, how many will die, under pensionable age, how many will go out of the fund, and how many, if widows, will be entitled to pension in their own right as widows of Members who have died.
A great body of evidence has been built up, which it is extremely useful to have. I hope therefore that the Committee will not accede to this request. It is true that the last quinquennial valuation and another inquiry took place at the same time and that the charge then appeared to some Members to be rather excessive. I should, however, imagine—that in time, the cost will not be excessive unless the calls on the Fund expand very much. There were reasons why it was slightly greater during the war than it would otherwise have been. We have had only eight years and only one Dissolution of Parliament since the Fund came into operation. We have not any real data as to what the calls on this Fund will be when normality returns. We know that 55 members have died, and that a number of widows have come on to the Fund, but that is no indication of the number


of widows who might later come to the trustees for help.
We have looked at this matter with the utmost sympathy, and it does seem to us to be unwise—I put it no higher than that—to do without the actuaries. When a body of evidence is gathered, the Government Actuary will be able to be, and undoubtedly will be, of the utmost use to the trustees.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I really cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman. His argument is perfectly "dotty," if he will forgive me for saying so. I am being perfectly fair—not making a debating point. I can see the point of having the Government Actuary's report if we do not know what the reserves ought to be, but what is the sense when we can come to this House under the new Clause and say that we want so much money because there are so many widows or so many M.P.'s? We do not need an actuary's report. It is absurd. The right hon.

Gentleman's argument is absurd. I used the word "dotty"—it is just crazy.

Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman says "It seems to us, this, that and the other." Will he tell us—who "us" is?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knew. I will explain. This is a purely domestic matter. It is for the House to judge how this Fund should be run. The Government are, I think, fully entitled to make suggestions to the House, and it is our considered view that it would be right and fair to get an actuarial report. This is what the House in 1939 thought desirable and it would be wrong to go back on it now. However, it is for the Committee to decide.

Question put: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 46.

Division No. 147.]
AYES.
[12.25 a.m.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Hardy, E. A.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Attewell, H. C.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Baird, J.
Holman, P.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Barton, C.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Sargood, R.


Bechervaise, A. E.
House, G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hoy, J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Simmons, C. J


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Skeffington, A. M


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Snow, J. W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Janner, B.
Sorensen, R. W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Jay, D. P. T.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E)
Stubbs, A. E.


Champion, A. J.
Jenkins, R H
Swingler, S.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Symonds, A. L.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W.)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Corlett, Dr. J.
King, E. M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Crossman, R. H. S
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Deer, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mitchison, G. R
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Monslow, W.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Farthing, W. J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Foot, M. M.
Palmer, A. M. F
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Gibson, C. W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Woodburn, A.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Price, M. Philips
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Gunter, R. J.
Pritt, D. N.



Guy, W. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Rankin, J.
Mr. Pearson and


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES.


Baldwin, A. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bossom, A. C
Drewe, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Bowen, R.
Duthie, W. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Butcher, H. W.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
MoCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Howard, Hon. A.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


De la Bère, R.
Kinley, J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.




Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sutcliffe, H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Ramsay, Maj. S
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Turton, R. H.
Colonel Ropner and


Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Lieut.-Commander Gurney


Studholme, H. G.

Braithwaite.


Question put, and agreed to.

12.30 a.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do not understand what has happened about this Bill. On the Second Reading the Lord President of the Council said:
I hope I shall secure agreement of all sides of the House in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. If, however, as I believe and hope is unlikely, a Division should be challenged, the Whips will be off, as this is a matter for the Members of the House in their individual capacity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1948; Vol. 450, C. 1403.]
Those words, which in the first place were directed to the Motion for the Second Reading, obviously applied also to the subsequent stages of the Bill. I must say that I was astounded that on the Division which has just taken place the Whips of the Government were put on. I hope that we shall at least have the presence of the Lord President of the Council to explain why this change has taken place. Is this now becoming a Government Measure, because if it is a matter for Private Members only, there is no reason why the Whips on either side should be put on?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: When the right hon. and gallant Member rose I was about to apologise to the House for what would appear to be a breach of faith, in that Government Tellers, though not Government Whips, were put on in the Division which has just taken place. It is true that the Lord President of the Council on Second Reading indicated what I think is generally known, that this is a domestic and not a party matter, and that the Whips would not be put on. He was referring to Second Reading, but I do not want to make a point of that. In Divisions taken on Second Reading, Committee, Report, or Third Reading of a Measure of this kind, it is desirable that the vote should be quite free as I hope the last vote was. The Whips were not on, but two Government Tellers told in the Lobbies, and for that I apologise. It was an oversight on my part and I hope that no damage was done.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I hope that it will not be thought that I am a bad loser, but I have been working on the Fund for a good long time, and have always acted in a completely non-party manner. It has been the rule, and I honestly believe we have been trying to save the money of the people who are going to benefit. To put the Whips on for an Amendment which stands in the name of the trustees of the Fund is not fair, and does not do much to encourage those who want to help those who fall by the way.

Captain Crookshank: While, of course, we accept the apology of the right hon. Gentleman, the fact remains that if one comes in and sees that the Government Whips are Tellers it is a very narrow distinction between that and the Government Whips being on. I hope, therefore, that at a subsequent stage of the Bill, which I do not suppose is going to be taken tonight, the matter will be left and reconsideration may be given even by the right hon. Gentleman to the Clause which has now been left in the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for cases of special hardship.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the trustees may, for the purpose of alleviating special hardship, cause to be made out of sums appropriated for the purposes of this section or the income thereof such periodical or other payments as they think fit to or in respect of persons who have been members of the House of Commons whether before or after the passing of the principal Act, or the widows, widowers or orphan children of such persons.

(2) The provisions of the First Schedule to the principal Act (except paragraph 5 of that Schedule) shall not apply to payments made under this section; but subject to the provisions of the said paragraph 5 the making of any payment under this section, and the amount of any such payment, shall be in the entire discretion of the trustees.

(3) For the purposes of this section the trustees may appropriate out of the fund established under the principal Act—

(a) a sum not exceeding three thousand pounds; and


(b) sums not exceeding the value of any property which may, at any time after the commencement of this Act, be accepted by the trustees under subsection (2) of section three of the principal Act, or the investments for the time being representing any such property.

(4) The House of Commons may in any year by resolution direct that there shall be appropriated for the purposes of this section out of the said fund such part, not exceeding one-tenth, as may be specified in the resolution of the sums deducted or set aside in that year from the salaries of members of the House of Commons under subsection (3) of section one of the principal Act.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I would like to move this new Clause with the addition of a new Subsection (5):
In this section the expression 'year' means a year beginning on the First Day of October.
This Clause empowers the trustees to meet special cases of hardship by payments out of the section of the Fund consisting of the original £3,000, any gift to the Fund under Section 3 (2) of the Act of 1939, and if the House so decides by affirmative resolution, 10 per cent. of members' contributions to the Fund in any one year. A fresh resolution would be required if it were desired to repeat the 10 per cent. grant from the members' allocations in a subsequent year.
Payments under this Clause will be at the entire discretion of the trustees, except of course, they can only be made to ex-M.Ps., their widows or orphans. In making grants under this special hardship procedure, the means test applied to the First Schedule of the 1939 Act may be disregarded by the Trustees, if they think fit. We think that this Clause gives flexibility to the Trustees and will enable thorn to meet the various cases of hardship which may conceivably come before them. The idea behind this new Clause is one which has been proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew), who has done so much for the fund since he became the chairman of the trustees. We hope that it meets the point that he and his co-trustees have in mind and the wishes of the Committee generally.
With regard to the new Subsection (5), I understand that the trustees' year for this

fund begins in October. If we did not move this Amendment to the new Clause, and if the Clause were accepted without the Amendment, it would be assumed the year ran from January to December. This would not suit the book-keeping and the auditing of the fund, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend—as much as I was angry with him just now—for this new Clause, which I think is a very good one. He has given us more than we wanted, although he does not trust us, I gather. I do not think it will take very much, because, as I said on Second Reading, the class of people who will benefit, those prior to July, 1931, are old and diminishing in number. However, I do thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting our suggestion. I think the new Clause will help our position very considerably.

Lieutenant - Commander Braithwaite: The right hon. Gentleman emphasised that this was a domestic matter, a House of Commons affair. Perhaps, I differ slightly from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew), but I think we ought to make two comments before this new Clause is incorporated into the Bill. The first is that the Government, even in this domestic matter, accept the principle of the means test. The right hon. Gentleman made that quite clear. I think it should go on record. It is rather interesting that, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, the means test is regarded as perfectly proper procedure.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I said the means test, which is laid down in the Act of 1939, may be disregarded if the trustees are so minded. In fact, if we are doing anything, we are allowing them to disregard the means test.

Sir C. MacAndrew: On that point I should like to make a correction. The means test still stands in the Bill, although the margin is raised by £100.

Lieutenant-Commander Braithwaite: May I make my speech? I think my hon. and gallant Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have between them established the point that Members of this House are to be subjected to a means test by a Socialist Government.
My second comment is this. I do feel—perhaps, I am a little old-fashioned—a certain contempt for a man who is content to live and support himself upon his wife or his wife's family. I cannot see any reason why the widower of a deceased lady Member of Parliament should be included. I think that that is a contemptible and lowering and degrading provision in the Bill. All one has to do is to court a lady Member of Parliament and succeed in securing her hand to live upon the charity of Members of the House of Commons. That is a typical Socialist proposal, which I find utterly contemptible.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I think we ought to make a correction in what has been said, lest it should go out that the means test has been abolished. It has not. An ex-Member, if he has £325, gets nothing, and a widow of an ex-Member, if she has £225, gets nothing. The limit has been raised by £100.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think we must clear this up. It is not the Government which is proposing any means test. We are dealing with a non-party matter. May I make that clear? I am not talking about the body of the Bill or what was in the 1939 Act in regard to the limits of income above which it would be impossible to make allocations from the fund: I am talking about this Clause. I cannot talk about any part of the Bill, because that would be out of Order. I am moving a new Clause in which it is laid down that the means test, which is in the original Act and continued in this one with higher limits, may in certain circumstances be disregarded.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I quite agree with all the right hon. Gentleman says. Surely it is not suggested that people who have never contributed are to be put in a better position than those who have. I am getting that idea most strongly.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 1 of principal Act.)

At the end of Section one of the principal Act there shall he added the following Subsection:—

(6) No grant from this fund shall he made to a member of the House of Lords.—[Sir C. MacAndrew.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause can apply only to Members of the House of Lords who have been Members of the House of Commons. I am fortified in my Amendment by the finding of the Select Committee which reported last year. I will read the relevant paragraph:
Your Committee have considered the question whether or not former Members of the House of Commons who have become Members of the House of Lords should be eligible for grants from the Fund, if fulfilling the conditions laid down in the Act. Your Committee are of the opinion that in no circumstances should a grant from this Fund be made to Members of the House of Lords.
The Amendment stands not only in my name, but in the names of all the trustees. The point is a very simple one. As the Committee knows, the names of all beneficiaries are kept secret. That being so, if we were helping Members of another place and a constitutional question arose, it might make the position very awkward. If I may read a line or two from the evidence that I gave to the Select Committee, I think it will make the point perfectly clear.
I did have a certain amount of worry. The difficulty was resolved because the income of the man in question was over the amount laid down in the Act. In the case of a Member of the House of Lords applying for a pension, it was felt that if the House of Commons were subsidising Members of the House of Lords, supposing it grew to very large dimensions, it would be awkward and it would raise a constitutional issue. What would be the position if the House of Commons were in a position to say to Members of the House of Lords, 'If you do not do this, we do not give you your benefit?'.
Because under the Act all these grants are to be reviewed annually, and whether or not any threat or suggestion of any kind is made, if a man in another place were in receipt of a grant and a clash arose between the two Houses and he knew that his £225 could be cut off, it might become awkward. If the House of Commons wishes to say that Members of the House of Lords should receive grants, that takes the responsibility away


from me and my hon. Friends. I should like a decision on this. I am not prepared to be responsible for a situation which may lead to a crisis which would far outweigh any importance which I would ever hold in this place. I think the matter is perfectly simple.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will see his way to accept the new Clause, on grounds somewhat different from those advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am not going into the more delicate details of this matter, but another place has now become a dumping ground for Ministerial failures. I hope the Home Secretary will contain himself—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the remark made by the hon. and gallant Member was undesirable.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: It what I said was out of Order, I will withdraw it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not ruled that it was out of Order, but even though a remark is in Order it may not be desirable.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: May I substitute for "dumping ground" the words "goal of all true demagogues under Socialism." I was about to say that I hoped the Home Secretary would contain himself in his disappointment over his refutation by his party the other night. I rose only to make the practicable suggestion that if their Socialist Lordships find themselves under financial stress owing to their unexpected promotion, surely the solution of the difficulty would be for their Lordships to start their own pensions fund. I cannot see why this honourable House should have to subscribe to a pensions fund for their noble Lordships in another place. I think that should commend itself to hon. Members in all sections of the Committee. Surely, their Lordships, if they are to be strengthened and sustained by the promotion of hon. Gentlemen opposite—I will not go into particularisation—by the promotion of those who, to put it mildly, have been failures here, either financially or otherwise—because the hon. Member

for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) said only yesterday that the Front Bench opposite is peopled by those who, owing to failure to become capitalists have become Ministers—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have perhaps given the hon. and gallant Member more latitude than I should have done. May I ask him now to address himself to the new Clause?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: But this new Clause suggests that this House should subsidise its ex-Members who go to another place. I have given some reasons why elevation takes place under the present dispensation. I am sorry if it is out of Order to refer to the present Government. I would have thought that was very much in Order. However, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. But if we have now reached a stage at which another place has got into such straits that it is no longer self-supporting—a drastic comment on Socialism—can it not have its own pensions fund? I hope the Financial Secretary will accept the new Clause.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. and gallant Member has been needlessly offensive. The point put by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew) is a perfectly good one and it is one which the Government have considered. The Government have, however, come to the conclusion that the point really is a thin one. To begin with, those who have been members of the House for the requisite time, which is at least ten years, and have subscribed during the whole of that period to this Fund ought not lightly to be robbed of their rights. The mere fact that a Member goes upstairs, should not in itself disqualify him from coming to the trustees and getting help if he has fallen on hard times. If the new Clause were accepted, it would prevent any such individual ever getting any help from this fund, although he might by the time he needed it have ceased for many years to be an active Member of either House. It would also rob his eldest son of any call on the Fund after his death. We think that this would be drastic and on occasion unfair; the trustees might feel that they were fettered in a way in which they ought not to be.

Sir C. MacAndrew: This does not include his widow. There is no point in including her.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I did not say so.

Sir C. MacAndrew: It does not include anyone except a Member of the House of Lords himself.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As we read it, it may be wrong, it would preclude his eldest son. I am glad of the assurance that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to exclude an orphan child of a Member who goes to House of Lords. But we do not base our view that it would be wiser for the Committee not to accept the new Clause on this ground although we think that it is a sufficient one in many ways. It does seem to us that the constitutional argument for excluding the ex-Members of this House (who happen to be Peers) from the benefits of this Fund is rather thin. As I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, it is that a peer who draws from this fund might feel obliged to vote in a particular way in another place. It is, however, not the Government who would be providing the money. In fact, only the trustees would know to whom payments were being made. It seems to us to be very far-fetched to imagine that a member of the House of Lords, who previously had been a Member of the House of Commons, and who was drawing the small amount which is possible under this Bill or its predecessor, could be made to vote in some way which was desired or forced upon him by the Government. The Government would have nothing to do with it, and would not even know who were drawing the money. We think the constitutional issue is not a valid one; as the Members concerned would have subscribed to the Fund, we hope that the Committee on a free vote will reject this new Clause.

Captain Crookshank: I am rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because he said once or twice that it did not seem right "to us" to do this or that. Again I say, who is "us"? This is a House of Commons matter. We are very much guided by the Report of the Select Committee, which unanimously decided, as will be seen in paragraph 32 on page 10, that this should not

be done. All, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend's Clause does is to put into words the recommendation of the Select Committee.
1.0 a.m.
The right hon. Gentleman says the point is a thin one. It does not seem to me to be a thin one at all, for the Select Committee, having heard the evidence, came to the conclusion it was undesirable that members of the other place, if after some years time they fell upon evil days, while still able to sit in that place should draw upon the Pension Fund of this House. The whole object of the Fund, as I thought it, was really to help ex-Members of this House and ex-Members of this House, in words, do not mean Members of another House. It means an hon. Member or an hon. Lady no longer connected with Parliament at all.

Mr. Pritt: Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North) indicated dissent.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) shakes his head, but I do not think, if I cast my mind back to when this was first instituted, it was ever intended to deal with any except those Members of Parliament—

Mr. Pritt: Since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has put the question to me, my recollection was that it was people who were no longer Members of this House. Surely, if they happen to become Members of another House, where they are not paid, they should not be deprived of expectations as a result of having sat long years here and listened to the right hon. and gallant Member.

Captain Crookshank: Heaven forbid that that should be one of the reasons for getting a pension. I disagree with the hon. and learned Member. I thought on the whole—and most hon. Members were here when the Measure was originally enacted—that it was made for those who had spent long years of service in this House and afterwards fell upon what the right hon. Gentleman called "evil days." It may be that some people of a more extreme type may have the feeling that "evil days" is exactly the same as becoming Members of another place, but that is not the normal acceptance of promotion elsewhere. It


does seem to me that it raises a possible predicament between the two Houses, and I should like the views of a constitutional lawyer on this. We do not even recognise the other place. We call it "the other place" and we do not put it any higher than that. What they do and what we do in these matters have nothing to do with each other.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That puts the whole thing in a nutshell. If we do not recognise them, it would be strange that we should put something about them into the Bill.

Captain Crookshank: I would not say that. I say that when you have set up a Select Committee and all the Members agree irrespective of party, as will be seen by the names on the new Clause, it should be made clear beyond peradventure that in this Bill we are not going to make any grants if it happens that ex-Members of this House become Members of another place. It seems that it is an important constitutional point.
This is a purely House of Commons point. It would be a great pity if the House at this hour were to go against the recommendations of the Select Committee after it heard all the evidence. There are pages of it but I do not propose to read them now. It would be a pity to do that when they, having heard all that evidence, came to the conclusion that those who are pensioners, whoever they may be—no-one knows except the trustees—if they become members of another place subsequently, should not draw upon the fund. It seems to be that the original idea was for a pensions fund for hon. Members and that, therefore, it is completely inapplicable for such persons as become Members of Parliament by becoming Lords of Parliament. They are then Members of Parliament again by all constitutional right. Lords are as much Members as we are. We may put "M.P." after our names and they do not, but they are Members of Parliament too.
Therefore it seems completely ridiculous that Members of Parliament in another place should be eligible for pensions which Members of Parliament ex hypothesi are not eligible for in this House, because they are still Members of Parliament in the House of Commons: that is the matter in a nutshell. In view of the strong and

unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee, and as this new Clause is in the names of those concerned, I hope that the House tonight will not put itself in the slightly ridiculous position of possibly, in the future, giving a grant to Members in another place and therefore making it unwittingly awkward for such Members, when they become peers, in regard to the way they exercise their votes in that House. It seems to me that the matter is crystal clear and I hope there may not be a Division about it.

Mr. Pritt: I should have thought that there was some confusion of thought in reasoning, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does, that here is an Act which says, "If you have been in the House of Commons for 10 years and you are in need of money, then you may apply to the Fund and you may get something"; and at the same time to look upon it as saying. "You may happen also to have gone to another place and are therefore Members of Parliament. Why should that make any difference when you are seeking to draw upon the Pension Fund gathered by Members of this House?" I should have thought that there was a complete confusion in suggesting that there was anything unconstitutional in that.
There is a more practical and reasonable matter. It might be desirable that in another place two-thirds of the Members might have to vote upon something on which ex hypothesi this House has already expressed an opinion, and they might be going to vote against the view expressed by the majority of this House. Surely it is a little odd that a number of Members should have that awkward and delicate duty—as when a Bill for the complete nationalisation of the land might have to come before a House half of whom were landowners.

Colonel Ropner: As a member of the Select Committee, I want to assure the House that the Committee were unanimous in their view that the Members of the House of Lords should not share any part of this Pension Fund. I think it is a little difficult that the new Clause is proposed from this side of the Committee and is opposed by the Minister from that side. It may be a little difficult for all Members to appreciate that this really is a free vote—a question about which we ought to make up our own minds quite apart from party ties.


The hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) has already reminded the Committee that the Select Committee, formed from all parties, was unanimous in its recommendation, but may I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the new Clause has been proposed by the Chairman of the Trustees and is supported by all the other Trustees among whom there are members of all three parties. It seems to me—though I find it rather hard to give a concrete reason—that there is something wrong about a Member of the other place receiving a pension from this House, just as I would think there was something wrong for any Member of this House to receive a pension from the other place. I suggest that if Members of the other place want to benefit from any sort of pension arrangements, they ought to establish a Pension Fund in the other place.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I wish to make two short points in support of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough. One, I think, hon. Members in all sections of the Committee who were in the last House will confirm. It is a point which, I think, gives some relevant guidance on this matter, though I do not suggest that it is in any way conclusive. When the proposal was originally made to establish this Members' Fund, the first proposal was that the Fund should be composed of the contributions that we all make and also of gifts from any member of the outside public who liked to contribute, and there were a number of public men who might have done so. But the more the matter was thought about and discussed the more it was thought, I think in every section of the House, that it was very undesirable that the Fund should not be wholly raised

by this House and by former Members and be a domestic matter of this House. I am not suggesting for a moment that that is conclusive, but it does show how little this House would like it if the Fund were in any way formed with outside support. Is it not likely that the other House will have similar views about the undesirability of its members looking for any help of this nature from outside sources?

I hope that hon. Members in all quarters will see that there is some force in that. It would raise rather undesirable features in both Houses, and for that reason should be avoided. The only other point I wish to raise is in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary. He said that the trustees might at some time desire to exercise their discretion in this way. It seems to me that that is a very surprising argument when all the existing trustees are asking the Committee to relieve them of having such a discretion. They are asking for it to be provided by the law of the land that they shall not have such discretion. Anyone who has ever exercised the functions of a trustee knows that it is sometimes quite useful not to have certain discretions, for thus you exclude many undesirable applications. You avoid exciting false hopes in a number of people who might be tempted to apply. On the grounds of the Committee's report, of the unanimous desire of the existing trustees not to have any such discretion, of the desire of this House that the Fund should not be contributed to by any outside source, and the possibility that similar feelings will operate in another place, I hope for all those reasons that the House will accept this new Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 48.

Division No. 148.]
AYES
[1.15 a.m.


Baldwin, A. E.
Howard, Hon. A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bossom, A. C
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Bowen, R.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Stubbs, A. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Kinley, J.
Studholme, H. G


Butcher, H. W
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Channon, H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Turton, R. H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


De la Bère, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Willougbby de Eresby, Lord


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.



Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Duthie, W. S.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Colonel Ropner and


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney


Hare, Hon, J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Braithwaite.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Simmons, C. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Holman, P.
Skeffington, A. M.


Baird, J.
Hoy, J.
Snow, J. W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Jay, D. P. T.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jenkins, R. H.
Symonds, A. L


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Moyle, A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Foot, M. M.
Pearson, A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Woodburn, A.


Gunter, R. J.
Rankin, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Mrs. Freda Corbett and


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Mr. George Porter.


Question put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Acceptance of property by the trustees.)

In Subsection (2) of Section three of the principal Act (which empowers the trustees to accept certain property) all the words from "who is or," to the end of the Subsection, shall be omitted.—[Sir C. MacAndrew.]

Sir Charles MacAndrew: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
At present the trustees are required to accept any money left to them by anyone who is or has been a Member of the House of Commons, but we are not entitled to receive money from anyone else. It seems to me that if anyone is good enough to leave money to this Fund there is no reason in the world why we should not accept it. Anyway, I can see no reason. Perhaps that is because I am a Scotsman, but I can see no sense in not accepting a bequest left by someone who does not happen to be a Member. If the trustees are left by a Member or ex-Member any property or real estate investments, we have to realise them as soon as maybe and re-invest them in authorised trustee securities. This Clause also makes it possible to remove that restriction. I am not trying to make a party point of this, but everyone in this House knows perfectly well the inflation which is now going on. We see it every time we go to buy something, and anyone left property or land or anything else of that kind, would not in their senses cash it now. As a trustee I can see no sense at all, if we are left any property, that we should not operate it and keep it until such time as we think it right to sell. The trouble is not prices rising but the value of the pound falling. Who would today take money out of real estate and put it into trustee securities, if he could do anything else? I hope the Committee will agree to allow us to accept money that is offered to us, and allow us freedom to invest it as any prudent man would.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This is a domestic matter, and the Committee will come to their own decision, but I am empowered by the Government to say that they have looked at this proposal. It does seem to the Government to involve certain risks which were considered when the original Act was passed and gifts were confined to those from Members and ex-Members. We do feel that that limitation was a reasonable one, and that it would be a pity to depart from it. This is, as I have said all through, a House of Commons Members' Fund; we subscribe to it among ourselves; we fix our own rules; we have even gone so far as to rob ourselves of any chance of getting Income Tax rebate on the amounts we subscribe to the fund. We feel—it is for the Committee to decide, but the Government feel—that it would be wise to retain the original words in the original Act, and for the fund not to accept gifts from outsiders.
This is a small point, but if this new Clause were accepted, a further amendment to the Bill would be necessary. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has forgotten that the Third Schedule of the original Act deals with powers of investment. If the new Clause were accepted as it stands, it would be necessary to amend that Schedule. However, we feel that the Committee would be wise to reject the new Clause, and that it would be much better, more straightforward and more dignified not to accept it.

Sir C. MacAndrew: What about investment? Would the Government be prepared to accept the latter part of the new Clause, and allow us to retain real estate left to us by an ex-Member?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Again, that is a matter for the Committee to decide, not for


the Government. I am simply acting for the Government in taking the view—which I think correct—that, as we are piloting the Bill through, it is our business to make to the Committee suggestions which it is for the Committee to accept or reject as they think fit. If we think it not right and open to objection for the Fund to accept gifts from outsiders, then quite obviously there is an objection to such gifts whatever the kind of property involved.

Sir C. MacAndrew: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has read the new Clause. There are two things here. At the present time we cannot accept property from people other than ex-Members or Members. That is one matter. The other is, we cannot keep real estate. Would the Government be willing to allow us to keep real estate rather than realise it imprudently? I gather they are not going to allow us to accept money from outside sources. Will they allow us to keep property left us by Members or ex-Members? Suppose that I died and left the House some property. Would the House be allowed to keep it, or must the property be sold while inflation is going on?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The words in the original Act are "as soon as may be." The realisation of the property might not be made until some considerable time after it was left to us at death—for most gifts of this sort would presumably be bequests. The matter would require careful thought, because, clearly, that property should not be got rid of on the spur of the moment by a forced sale when, by holding on to it, something better might be got for it. I think the original words cover that. If I may give my own view, I think it would be invidious if ex-Members began to leave real property so that the Trustees found themselves gradually and increasingly involved in managing estates. That would be open to considerable objection and the Trustees could possibly not want it.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Pritt: I would like to say one word in support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. In regard to the question of holding real property, the right hon. Gentleman is right in regard to the ordinary English administration of a trust. I am

speaking only of England; I do not know about Scotland. If property is left to a trust, it can be held for a very considerable time. That rather contradicts the other observations about the undesirability of holding property. If you say they can hold it for a considerable time, then they are holding it. Certainly it is right that at times they should hold real property. It would be better if the right were expressed, though I do not think there is very much difficulty about the original Act. On the main point of why we should not accept gifts to the Fund from outside, if we are going to accept gifts, and I see no reason why we should not, why money should be considered clean from inside the House and non-kosher from outside, I cannot understand. We should take gifts from anybody.

Mr. George Porter: I hope this Clause will be accepted. The Fund is the responsibility of all Members of this House. The purpose is to give certain payments to ex-Members who happen to fall on hard times. Surely if we are shouldering that responsibility in an equitable manner and paying the same contribution while we are Members, and the Member who finds himself at the other end of scale when he retires wants to make a further contribution to help his comrades whom he left in the House, there is no reason why he should not make that contribution. He makes it on the acceptance of the principle on which the Fund is based, and because fate has dealt more kindly with him when he is retired, he should not be debarred from making a further contribution to help those whom fate has not treated so well.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The hon. Gentleman does not quite understand. The existing position is that there is nothing to prevent any ex-Member from leaving property for the benefit of the Fund. The new Clause seeks to widen that provision in order that we can accept gifts from others as well. Ex-Members can do it now. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that in this domestic matter, in view of the opinions expressed on both sides of the Committee, he might consider this matter. We have just passed a provision, by a slender majority of two


votes, by which noble Lords in another place can benefit from our own fund. Ought we not therefore to allow noble Lords in another place to make a little contribution to us? It seems to me to be a reasonable thing to do. In view of what has been said on both sides of the Committee, will not the Financial Secretary consult with his colleagues about this provision, or accept it now?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am in the hands of the Committee. I have no feeling on the matter one way or the other. It is for the Committee, not for me, to decide. If it is the wish of the Committee, we shall accept it. But I should point out that it will require some further Amendment to provide for the fact that the Third Schedule definitely lays down the securities in which the Trustees may hold stock.

Sir C. MacAndrew: Let us have it.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Captain Crookshank: If I am in Order I would like to move, "That further consideration of the Bill be adjourned," in view of the fact that we know that there has to be an Amendment made on the Report stage, and in view of the fact that it is very late and that one of the Amendments was disposed of by a majority of only two votes in a Committee of fewer than 100 on a domestic matter.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I hope the House will not agree to this suggestion. It is true that we have had a discussion upon a number of new Clauses tonight, but I do not think they have been greatly controversial. It is true that, as I have already indicated, we may have to make some change in the Third Schedule; but it is obvious that that can be done in another place. We are getting quite near to the Recess, and it will, I think, be to the advantage of all concerned—and the chairman of the Trustees will, I imagine, bear me out in this view—that we should get this Measure at the earliest possible moment. I can see no reason why we should delay the matter beyond tonight. Unless hon. Members have a

lot to say, I imagine that the proceedings can be over in quite a short time; then we can go home. I suggest that we take the Third Reading, and that we make the Amendment in another place.

Captain Crookshank: I think it would be most objectionable that in a domestic matter the House of Commons should rely upon an Amendment being made in another place. I cannot conceive that there is any urgency in this matter between today, or tomorrow, or the next day, in the passing of this Bill. I do think that in this domestic matter we should adjourn further consideration till another day, so that we ourselves may deal with such Amendment as may be necessary. Quite apart from that, the House as a whole may very well wish to consider a matter of its own domestic concern which was only defeated by the small majority of two votes. The right hon. Gentleman has said several times that this is a House of Commons matter, not a Government matter. As a House of Commons Member, not speaking from the Front Bench, because I move two paces when necessary, as the Lord Chancellor does in another place, I hope we may now adjourn the matter, and leave it for another day. It is quite improper at this time of night to be told that an Amendment is necessary and that it will be made elsewhere, when the other place has nothing to do with our domestic arrangements.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Very well. Again, this is a matter for hon. Members to decide. The alteration is a very small one, and not one of principle. If it is the view of the Committee that we should postpone further consideration, who am I to object? I readily fall in.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday and to be printed [Bill 85].

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION, SCOTLAND

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." [Mr. Pearson.]

1.41 a.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hour is very late, and I desire to express my appreciation to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate for their courtesy in being here. I will not keep the House long, but I feel this is a matter of great importance. Recently I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer two Questions. The first was whether he would consider reinstituting the pre-war practice of having revenue and expenditure returns for Scotland and England separately; and the second was whether he would issue at an early date a national balance sheet of industry and trade, setting out clearly the drawings and receipts of Scotland and England respectively. To both of these Questions the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied that I and others interested—which means the whole of Scotland—must await a statement to be made by the Secretary of State at an early date. The House will recall that the Secretary of State made that statement, and that it failed to answer either of my Questions.
I therefore questioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer again, and was told that it would be inopportune to do anything about either of my suggested proposals—a type of answer, and an attitude of mind behind it, of which in my short time in this House I am becoming a little tired. I would like to ask, "Inopportune to whom?" For the Government? Very Likely. But for Scotland never was the time more opportune, or the problem more urgent. It looks as if the Government are taking the view that this is entirely a matter of finance. It is far, far more than that.
There is in Scotland today a very wide and strong feeling that we are not getting a square deal. I am not saying that such is the case, but only that there is this feeling. It is extremely difficult to explain to the harassed housewives of Scotland the fact that we could amply clothe ourselves, warm ourselves, and feed ourselves, if we were not exporting large

quantities of these necessities of life to England. I shall be told there is a good reason for this, and I am not disputing it for the moment. But the Scottish housewife knows she cannot clothe herself or her family, or replace her household linen, blankets, sheets, curtains and so on; she sees her scanty supplies of fuel getting worse in quantity and higher in price; she sees her rations daily lessening in bulk and getting poorer in quality.
I would ask Ministers: do they realise how nationalist feeling in Scotland is growing on this type of thing? I do not mean to say that everyone is joining the Scottish Nationalist Party, though we must admit that is a live and energetic party. I mean that people of all ages and sections and in all walks of life are asking questions. Why are we going so short and at the same time sending so much out? Why are we sending so much high quality beef to England and getting in return frozen imported or tinned beef? Why are our ships not unloading cargoes in Scottish ports and why does all that comes to Scotland come either by road or rail? Why cannot we control our own affairs? Do not we pay grinding taxes? Where does the money go? Are we getting value for money and cannot we do better on our own? Those are perhaps strange questions, but those and one hundred similar questions are being asked in Scotland by all sections and they need an answer. Facts and figures should be given to the Scottish people.
The provision of the material for which I asked in my Questions would go very far to provide an answer to Scottish nationalism whether it be moderate or extreme. The facts and figures might justify it or otherwise, but they would provide an answer. I think we are entitled to these figures and I want to know why the Government insist on withholding them. "Not opportune" are the words. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when the period will be opportune.
We are a partnership. The sovereign States of England and Scotland are joined in a great United Kingdom, but is there any other partnership known to any hon. Member in which one partner does not know exactly what the other puts in or takes out? Can it be a partnership if there is no mutual trust and frankness between the partners? I ask the Minister to answer one question


frankly and without equivocation. Why cannot we return to the practice, which was easy enough up to 1935, of putting the revenue and expenditure returns separately for Scotland and England? The machinery must be there. Why cannot it be done?
With regard to my second question, that of a national balance sheet for trading and industry between England and Scotland, this is a bigger matter. There would be a good deal of work in connection with it. The Treasury and the Board of Trade are the two Departments concerned. The Treasury have three times the staff of 1939 and the Board of Trade have ten times the staff. Therefore, it should be possible for their increased staff to do that extra work when matters of such high importance to both countries, particularly Scotland, are in question. Such work and effort would be fully justified and should be made.
Until these questions are answered satisfactorily and the figures are produced, bad feeling, suspicion and possibly something worse will continue to grow and that, I think everyone will agree, would be highly undesirable. The Union of 1707 provided for a coming together of two sovereign States on a partnership basis. I believe firmly in that Union, although I think the Act of Union was a rotten Act. In the Government's hands lie the means to put these increasingly urgent matters right. Whatever their political opinions, the people of Scotland are united on one thing today—their demand for these facts and figures to be laid before them. It is the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland to represent this to the Cabinet if he has not already done so. I hope and believe he has. It is the duty of the Government to provide such figures now.
In conclusion, may I ask that we might not be fobbed off this time, as is so often the case, with talk of "Scottish sentiment"? When the Minister comes to reply, I ask that he should not, as so many others from that Bench, talk of meeting Scottish sentiment." It is not a matter of Scottish sentiment at all. It is a matter of Scottish right. I hope sincerely that the House will not think that I and those associated with me are anti-English when we ask for these facts and figures because we believe that it

will be in the interest of both countries to know where we stand. There is nothing anti-English. We are just asking for our partnership rights. The Minister, supported by two pillars of Scotland, one on the right and the other on the left, will, I hope, at least give us the assurance that the point I have raised will be thoroughly gone into and discussed by the Government.

1.52 a.m.

Mr. Rankin: I think that the House is indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) for raising this subject tonight. He has presented his case in a reasoned and reasonable way. I feel that I should like to say a word or two because I have raised this subject in the House. On 11th November of last year I put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland a question dealing with the Economic Survey for 1948 and suggested to him that he might consider if it were possible to show an import and export balance sheet for Scotland. He pointed out that that was difficult because Scotland and England were just like the Siamese twins. That was in a supplementary to my main Question. I do recognise that, in the give and take of Question and supplementary, we sometimes make statements that we would often like to qualify, and I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did qualify that a little later on. I shall not seek to make too much of the point.
But there are three things which I would like to say. First, I would like to say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who raised the matter that some of his points have already been answered. For example, with regard to one of our Scottish exports—coal—the statement has been made repeatedly in certain organs in Scotland that three million tons of coal were sent from Scotland to England. The year 1946 was the year specifically given. That statement was answered in reply to a Question by me in the House. It was shown to be false. The Minister of Fuel and Power gave the figure for 1946 as 600,000 tons—not three million tons; and in return from England we had 300,000 tons, so that the three million tons fell to 300,000. That is the type of statement that is pretty widely made and continues to be made in Scotland in spite of the fact that it has been shown to be wrong.
However, I want to put two points to the Minister. I shall be able to understand my right hon. Friend if he says that it is not expedient to make this change. Time and again the Front Bench on this side has been criticised for having too many people in the Civil Service and they have been told that the numbers should be reduced. If, therefore, it was necessary to increase the Civil Service in order to give us this information, then I would understand him if he said that in the meantime it was not expedient: but I shall not understand him if he says it is something that should not be done when the time is opportune.
Scotland is a nation, conscious of her nationhood, and as a nation she is entitled to know how her money is spent and what happens to her products. To have knowledge of these things is the right of any people who claim to be a nation. I think we are indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth for raising this subject tonight.

1.57 a.m.

Mr. Maclay: There are one or two things I am rather surprised to find myself saying this evening, but I think they must be said, because I am in the position, as a Scottish Member, of having consistently taken a public line on this question of Scottish Home Rule which has been quite outspoken. I have said that it is a disaster and should not be contemplated in the near future. I have argued the case with people who believe in Scottish Home Rule and I have found that the facts on which to argue this thing sensibly are missing. I say this for the benefit of those Members who are with us tonight from South of the Border and who do not realise just how intense the feeling is on this subject North of the Border. I do my best to have purely political meetings in certain parts of my constituency. It is quite difficult for me to get a meeting of 100 to 120, and my Socialist opponents have considerable difficulty in getting a meeting of 20 to 25 people. But if we have a meeting at which we discuss the question of Scottish devolution, then the hall is packed out and there is intense interest in the question.
It is, therefore, extremely important that we should put the facts over to the people of Scotland so that they can judge this issue sensibly on a balanced view,

because there have been the most fantastic statements, such as those about coal and the movement of steel. I myself have been in the most embarrassing position of hearing some astounding statements, particularly about steel movements from Scotland to England. I could not believe those statements and found subsequently that they were not true. It is imperative, therefore, that one should be able to produce these facts. I think the information that my hon. and gallant Friend has been asking for is extremely important, because we have to put this thing in balance. I believe most explicitly that Scotland makes the major contribution to the conduct of the affairs of Britain and she would hate to see that in any way decried.
My personal view—and I am taking a certain risk politically in saying this—is that it would be a tragedy if we in any way reduced the status of Scotland in relation to British affairs by trying to, assert our independence, because I believe we have the greatest possible contribution to make to national affairs. I think it would be a great disaster unless we found something within the devolution movement which it was extremely important to study in the complexity of modern government. That is the point of view from which I like to consider devolution, but I think that purely Scottish nationalism is a mistake. Unless, however, we can have the facts, we are put in an impossible position. We should have all the information it is possible to give in existing circumstances.

2.0 a.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) asked for two pieces of information. First, he wants the reinstitution of the old Revenue and Expenditure Returns, showing separately the revenue and expenditure for Scotland on the one hand, and for the rest of Great Britain on the other. Secondly, he inquired about some balance sheet of industry and trade for Scotland. It is true that the Revenue and Expenditure Returns were published rather spasmodically up to 1934–35, but I doubt, having looked at them, whether they prove very much. For instance, the return for 1934–35 showed that whereas Scotland contributed 8.6 per cent. of the total Budget revenue of Great Britain, she


accounted for 12.4 per cent. of the items of expenditure that could be identified—locally, that is, above such things as defence, which covered the whole country. I confess that, on the face of it, it may be argued that Scotland did pretty well out of this Budgetary transaction, but if we look further into the figures, it is very doubtful whether they mean a great deal. For instance, the method of apportioning revenue, from beer, tobacco, and now Purchase Tax, between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain is really very arbitrary, and also very laborious to compute.
For that reason, and because a great deal of work would be involved in working out these calculations, we are not convinced it would be worth while publishing that particular document at the present time. As has been said, we must economise these days in the manpower and paper absorbed by the Civil Service. We are very keen at the Treasury not to add to the labours of the Civil Service, and in this case it would mean adding also to the labours of private businesses in filling up forms and making returns.
More interesting and more worth while is the second question, namely, how far we can calculate the contribution of Scotland to the production, trade and employment of the nation as a whole. I do not think we can work out anything comparable to the Economic Survey. For one thing, fortunately, we have not a separate balance of payments problem in the case of Scotland, although we have plenty of balance of payment problems in the world as a whole. I very much doubt whether a separate national income or balance of trade figures could be computed. What I think could be usefully done is to record changes in employment, in production, in new industrial construction, in hydro-electric development, and so on.
Here, I think, there is a very encouraging story to tell. It has already been partially told in the White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland, published last summer. To mention one thing, unemployment in Scotland today stands at only 3½ per cent., as compared with an average of 20 per cent. in the years 1934 to 1938. In those years, there was an average of just under 300,000 persons unemployed, and today the figure

is 54,000, or only about one-sixth of what it was. Since the whole of Great Britain is now producing about 10 per cent. more than it was before the war, it follows that Scotland's increase must have been greater than that. That improvement, as, of course, I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree, has been very largely due to the building of new factories on a big scale under the Government's distribution of industry policy. Since the Distribution of Industry Act, which I know the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) will remember—

Mr. Maclay: Really the hon. Member should not claim for his Government responsibility for that particular Act because it was an Act of the Coalition Government.

Mr. Jay: I was not claiming credit for anyone. I was simply stating the facts. That Act was passed under the Coalition Government and carried out under the present Government. Since the passing of that Act, 176 new factories and extensions have been completed in Scotland as a whole and a further 270 are now building. The four chief industrial estates in existence before the war have, of course, been enlarged, and another 12 new ones have been started. I expect the hon. Member has visited both the sites and the estates since they were embarked upon. I would mention Dundee in particular, which I think is perhaps the best example of sound re-planning and re-location of industry in the last three years in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Since the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs mentioned the subject of credit and devolution, I think a great deal of credit can go to the Scottish Industrial Estates Company, which is supported by the Government, and also to the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office, both in Scotland and in London, who have planned the operation, and who introduced a large number of English and Welsh firms from the South into Scotland. I think that it is a good example of reasonable and practical efficiency and devolution, that firms like Smith's Clocks and Hoover's have come to Scotland in the last few years. I could also mention Scotland's contribution to the export trade. There were 170,000 persons working on exports last December, about 8 per cent. more than in the previous year.
We do propose, as was pointed out in the White Paper on Scottish Affairs earlier this year, to publish and present to Parliament an annual review of the main developments and trends in economic affairs in Scotland. This will continue last year's full and fascinating White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland, and it will supplement the United Kingdom Economic Survey by presenting in greater detail the main facts about industry and employment in Scotland.

which are not otherwise available in convenient form. It will, I think, go a very long way to meet what the hon. Member wants, and it will also make much more widely known the great economic and industrial progress that really has been achieved in Scotland since this Government came to power and certainly during the last three years.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes past Two o'Clock.